1920-03-02

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1919.
Copy of the International Opium Convention signed at the Hague, June 23, 1912, and ratified January 10, 1920.-Hon. M"r. Rowell.
*Copy of agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and the Government.-Hon. Mr. Reid.
Copy of Air Regulations.-Right Hon. Mr. Sifton.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster, Messrs. Steele,' Stewart (Hamilton), Douglas (Strath-cona) and Tobin were appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned.
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN REPLY. Consideration of the motion of Mr. Hume Cronyn for an address to His Excellency
the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment of the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King thereto, resumed from Monday, March 1.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria) :: Mr. Speaker, although somewhat familiar with the House of Commons for the last almost twenty years, still, coming to this new Chamber, I must confess to you, Sir, that I do not feel just quite as much at home as I used to feel, and I must crave the indulgence of hon. members on both sides of the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, while attempting to discharge the duty which now devolves upon me to continue the debate upon the motion before the Chair.
Let me at once, Sir, revert to the time honoured custom of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address, and to assure you in doing so I am not indulging perfunctorily in any old-fashioned custom that one regards merely as a matter of duty. We are proud, Mr. Speaker, of our Parliamentary institutions, traditions, and customs, and we are always zealous that the duty of moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the Throne shall be discharged in a manner becoming the House of Commons of Canada. It is therefore a great pleasure to be able to congratulate the leader of the Government upon the manner in which the hon. gentlemen selected by him have discharged their duty.
From the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) we expected the kind of address that he has given us, for we have heard him before, and know him to be of a literary turn of mind, and it is sufficient for me to say that he has done justice to his former reputation in this House.
My good friend who represents the grand old county of Pictou (Mr. McGregor) has not in the past troubled us very much with speeches, and being a very patriotic and zealous Nova Scotian, although differing from him in politics, I was very anxious indeed that he should do justice not only to the good old province of Nova Scotia but to the grand old county of Pictou. I am glad to be able to say to my friends in Nova Scotia that the traditions of our province have been well lived up to in the speech of my hon. friend.
My good friend from London (Mr. Ci-onyn) was during the study of his speech and in the delivery of it reminded of that good old phrase of Scotch thought, that it

required " A stoot heart to, stay brae. ' No doubt he realized that it required a particularly " stoot hairt " to face the " stey brae " of saying anything laudatory about the present Administration. But I must do him the justice of saying that he faced the brae very well;-whether or not he made the grade is another matter.
I shall not, Mr. Speaker, confine my congratulations entirely to these hon. gentlemen. I must congratulate the House, and particularly the Opposition, upon the very able and comprehensive speech of the leader of the Opposition '(Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King). Under our institutions the Opposition is recognized as a part of the machinery of Government, to the extent of its leader being paid, and properly so, out of the funds of the country. The whole House, therefore, must be pleased to know that we have in the person of the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition one who is well qualified to discharge the duties pertaining to that offce and in the doing of it to follow along proper constitutional lines. I congratulate the hon. Leader of the Opposition, therefore, upon his very excellent speech of yesterday. It opens up a new vista for the Liberal party; it gives them confidence in their leader, in his capacity and in his ability to blaze the way to greater things for Canada than Canada has ever known.
It would be carrying coals to Newcastle if I were to congratulate the old veteran- old, I mean, in parliamentary practice- who so ably and so well leads the remnant of the Government in this House (Sir George Foster). I wish, Sir, that the reply to the able speech of that hon. gentleman had fallen into abler hands than mine.
I listened to the right hon. gentleman's speech with a great deal of interest. I have tried to analyze it and to pick out of it whatever meat might be found in it. After sleeping over it last night and thinking over it a little this morning I find that if you strip the speech of its clever " Fos-terisms " there is not enough left for a decent burial. I shall refer later to the observations of my right hon. friend. It would be folly for a youngster in politics like myself to say that the way in which the leader of the Government delivers his addresses in this House is not able, is not masterful. I shall not attempt to do so; I shall simply make this passing observation : The leader of the Government began wrong some eighteen years ago; he has kept wrong, and I fear that he will end wrong.

We cannot forget our surroundings, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion. We cannot forget the grandeur of the magnificent building in which we find ourselves. The builders of this splendid temple have provided not only for the present, but also for the futux-e greatness of this country. No matter how great Canada may become; no matter how splendid its proportions or its material development or how large its population, for all time to come we and our children after us will have in this building, if God spares it to us, a temple worthy of the great country of which we are so proud.
This is a fair and proper time for some stock-taking so far as our country is concerned. Let us observe, Sir, what has been done; let us observe what it is possible for us to do in the future. Let us hope that this country will live up to the great expectations which the fathers of Confederation had in their minds when they started out to lay broad and deep the foundations of this country. We have in Canada magnificent lands, great areas of country extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We have mineral wealth, forest wealth, agricultural wealth, and we have a great people. Let us hope that we shall continue to utilize and husband our lands and resources, our facilities for transportation, and all that goes to make for the building of a great nation. Let us hope that our statesmen and our people will set themselves to the task of building up a great country, of building up a citizenship worthy of the Mother Country and its institutions-institutions which have made for this country a home of safety, happiness, and prosperity for its citizens. The fathers of Confederation laid the foundations of our transportation system, of the settlement of our vast stretches of country and of the building up of a nation within the bounds of Canada. Let us hope that no divisions of any kind will tend in the slightest way to mar the growth of our country, it unity, its prosperity, its greatness, or to make them less than what the fathers of Confederation had in mind in the days when there was consummated that union of which we are so proud and which we hope will ever be kept intact. Some differences of opinion may prevail among the different parts of Canada; some policies may be regarded as not of application to the whole country. But if we hope to be a nation, Sir; if we hope to grow up as a country; if we hope to be united from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we should so devise our plans and policies of Government as to bring about a reason-

able degree of success and prosperity throughout the whole of our Dominion.
I should like now to devote some time to the speech that was made by the leader of the Government yesterday and to the remarks of the member for London (Mr. Cronyn). I have no criticism to make of the speech of my hon. friend from London. He said that the old methods of Government were breaking down; that those old methods had fallen short of meeting the necessities of the country and that something new had to be brought in.
My hon. friend has not told us what that new thing is going to be, and if he finds the machinery of Government and of the party to which he belongs breaking down, I would invite him to pay attention to the manner in which his Government and party are breaking down and to give up talking about principles in the operations of the old parties.
I am not admitting for one moment that the principles of Liberalism have fallen down or that anything in connection with the Liberal party in this country has fallen down. On the contrary, it is strong and vigorous and willing to carry forward the responsibilities of party in connection with the affairs of this country as it has done of yore. If my hon. friend finds that that party to which he belongs is falling down upon the job; that it is not equal to carrying on the government of this country; that there is not that cohesion or unity amongst the members of that party that is necessary in order to enable it to carry on a common policy and purpose, let him admit the corn and say that they must look around for something new in order to carry on the affairs of government along the lines of party. But I will not admit that there is any occasion to say that, so Jar as we on this side of the House are concerned, there are any signs of decay, of falling short, or of inability to carry on the business of the country in a party way and along party lines.
There was a time in this country-and l suppose the time is not yet gone-when the Tory party stood for something in Canada. iSueh men as Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, and Sir John Thompson, stood for something in this country. They were great men in their day and generation, and there are in Canada to-day men who are proud of their history and of their doings. Is the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), with one stroke of the pen, going to wipe off the map the existence and history of such men
as leaders of a party and to build up something of some fanciful character, the character of which nobody knows, which has no beginnings of days or end of time so far as we can tell what he has in his mind? That is about all I have to say as regards the speech of my hon. friend, so well delivered, so worthy of him, so worthy of the institutions of this country, and so worthy of the excellent manner in which he discharged his duty.
Let me say a few words about the speech which was delivered in this House so ably and well by the acting leader of the Government yesterday evening. It has been said by the leader of the Opposition that we have not in this country to-day that strength of government that we should have in order to deal with the various important questions that loom up in Canada and with which we have to deal. My right hon. friend answered in his usual easy fashion, pointing out that the Government were all right; that they were perfectly sound, and that no man should pay any attention to rumours in his country; that he and the chosen few who are treading the narrow way with him alone knew what was going on in this country, and the the people of Canada would have to wait until the good time came when he thought proper to tell them something about the Government. He tells the leader of the Opposition that the door of the sick chamber (because I would call it the sick chamber) is well barred; that nobody can get in; and he told us that the bulletins that the newspapers were putting out were unreliable and not the truth, and that we knew nothing about the real condition of the sick person in the sick chamber. Doctors are very zealous about the atmosphere in a sick chamber, and very often they turn people out of a sick chamber. Apparently, whoever is in sick chamber now must be showing some of the symptoms which a person shows when the doctor turns the visitors out, because one after another of those who occupied that chamber are being turned out and we see them wandering at large, and we must come to the conclusion that they are turned out because the nervous condition of the patient will not tolerate any longer their presence in the sick room.
It is well known to doctors and to us all that when a person is sick he becomes nervous, and some things that used to be quite tolerable to him would not be permitted at all within reach of his touch or vision. When conditions grew unhealthy in the sick chamber, there were some



people sitting around whom the patient did not like, and when you see such men as Mr. Calder, Mr. Sifton-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -Mr. Crerar and other men sitting around, the sick man would say: "What do these Hebrews here anyhow; what brings them into this place?" And' the situation is that they are turned out. You will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, mentioning these hon. gentlemen by name, because I have no reference to them as members; I was referring to them in an imaginative way as men being turned out of a sick room, and I ask your pardon if I have transgressed the rules of the House. That is the condition in which we find the Government; but the leader of the Government is becoming so easily satisfied now that he says: They are perfectly all right, and they could always get along in that way; it was only following an old custom that there should be a full Cabinet and that every department should be manned. The right hon. gentleman has discovered that they can get along without them and that it is a saving of money and time and many other things that we should get along in this country without the whole Government. He pointed out yesterday that it does not matter so much about the body if we have plenty of heads. Would it not be well to ask some of the friends of the Government what they think of the present Administration? It would not do for myself to give any opinion of my own, because I am honest enough to say to you, Sir, that my opinion might be, to some extent, prejudiced. But the Administration has a few friends in the country; they have people who always thought well of them and we want to know what they say about the present Government of Canada. The leader of the Government would be quite willing to put the editor of the Montreal Gazette on the stand and ask him questions about the administration of affairs and the kind Government that we have in this country. He would say that it is quite fair to call as a witness the editor of that paper, because it is an old responsible newspaper in Canada; it is a paper that is familiar with the affairs of this country, and that has always been more than fair to the Tory party. He would admit that it is quite proper to call that editor and ask him a few questions in respect of this Government.
Let us put the Gazette on the witness stand, but before doing so, I want to read to this 
witness something that appeared in the editorial columns of his paper not long ago. The Gazette said that the Union Party was not united, that it had outlived its usefulness, and that having accomplished its purpose it was reverting electorally into its original elements. Here are the exact words:
The art of government is most difficult under the best auspices, but a leaderless ministry, destitute of policy, must be the despair of its friends. The public memory is short and public gratitude an unknown quantity. The electorate requires a guide, a policy, an association with those who invite its confidence; and the Government offers neither guidance, nor principles, nor familiarity with the people. The situation is not suddenly precipitated. It began with the conclusion of the war, since when futile efforts at permanent coalition have more than once been made, and minister after minister has dropped out until the situation has become difficult for the Government and despondent for' its supporters.
iThat is the statement made by that tried and true friend of the Government. Now let me ask the witness some questions.
What about the leader of the Tory party in the House of iCommons? The reply is " It has no leader; it is leaderless."
What about the policy of the Tory Party? "It has no policy."
What about the opinion in which it is held by its friends? " It is the despair of its friends."
How is it as a guide for public business "nd public policy in this country? " It offers no guidance."
What about the principles of the Government? " It has no principles."
How does it stand with the people? " It has no familiarity with the people at all; the people never knew it."
What about the present general standing of the Government? "'The Government is in a difficult position and its supporters are despondent."	*
That concludes the direct examination of this witness, and I would invite my right hon. friend at some future time to put this witness, his friend, under cross-examination and see if he has anything to take back of what he said in such plain words.
I am going to call one more witness, and it is no less a personage than the Hon. Robert Rogers, who at one time adorned the benches of this House and stood high in the counsels of the Tory Party, and stands high to-day, I have no doubt, in the counsels of that party under certain of its colours and flags and phases. Before calling this witness let me read what he said the other day when he was talking about this Government openly and plainly in the

great city of Winnipeg, before a gathering of his Tory friends, no doubt. He is reported as follows:
The Hon. Robert Rogers, a former colleague of Sir Robert Borden, who claims that he was the first to propose Union Government, says that the Union Government is "a Government of tinkers and jobbers, a Government of secondhand dealers, their energies almost entirely devoted to second-hand theories that are the product of the diseased brain of some poor unfortunate uplifter."


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: Who is the uplifter?
Mr. MeKENZIE: There are so few up-lifters in the Government that it is not hard to place him. I will leave it to the jury to put their finger on the uplifter. I do not agree, however, with Mr. Rogers that the uplifter has any diseased brain. I think his brain is very active. It is not so much the brain that is at fault, as the channels in which that brain is directed. We might ask Mr. Rogers a few questions: What position, for instance, he held in the Tory Party. He would answer that he was Minister of the Interior, and later, Minister of Public Works, and that he stood high in the counsels of that party.


Ernest Lapointe: Also minister of elections.
Mr. MeKENZIE: If we ask him why he left the party he would refer us to his letter of resignation which we all remember very well, and which appears on Hansard, in which he said that he was leaving because he wanted to get from under the crash that was coming in this country, due to the inaction and lack of ability in the Government of which he was a member. That was the reason he gave for leaving. In the face of that evidence I would ask my right hon. friend who leads the Government if it is not time he took serious thought as to whether this Government is such a substantial structure as he would seem to think it. If it is my privilege and my duty to address this House, it is also my duty and my privilege to warn my right hon. friend that this structure with which he is so satisfied is but a house built upon the sand which, when the storm comes and the rains descend and strike upon it will fall, and great will be the fall thereof. If he chooses to stay in that house after I have warned him, and prefers not to dig around a little and put stones under the corner to prop it up a little, when the crash comes and he loses his political life he will not be able to blame me.
Referring a little further to the speech of my right hon. friend, he was very sore,
4i
very sorrowful, and in great pain apparently, about the lack of sympathy in this country with public men, and particularly with prime ministers. As he was speaking I could not help asking myself, Is this a real Damascene conversion or is it a mere moment of weakness? I remembered, as we all remember, that there were times when he was not so sympathetic with prime ministers as he is now. Be that as it may, it was somewhat peculiar that from speaking of the lack of sympathy with prime ministers he immediately turned to birds and eggs in a nest. I presume, however, he will sometime explain how these thoughts were conceived. Now, there were some remarks in the Rt. hon. gentleman's speech with reference to ministers, and it is only well that his observations should be fai"ly and properly answered. He brought the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) severely to task for suggesting that ministers of the Crown should be in their seats. There may be, and I am sure there are, occasions when the business of the country demands that ministers shall not be in their seats but shall be attending to matters of importance elsewhere. I cannot conceive, however, of any circumstances that can render it impossible for a minister of the crown at some part of the day during the session of parliament to give some time, half an hour or an hour, to the proceedings of the House, particularly in the early stages of the sittings, so that any hon. member who was desirous to ask questions of the minister might have an opportunity to do so, in order that all necessary information might be vouchsafed the public. That is all that the leader of the Opposition meant, and I think it is only fair, if we are to have responsible government at all and if the operations of government departments are to be known to the public through the proper channel, that at some time during the day-not every day perhaps, although that would be highly desirable if it were possible-ministers of the crown should be in their places to answer such questions as might be properly put to them in regard to the administration of the affairs of their departments. Now, in regard to the position of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) possibly my right honourable friend (Sir George Foster) did not quite clearly apprehend the observations of the leader of the Opposition, and I feel that some explanation is necessary concerning his remarks anent the absence of the Prime Minister. I am sure that I myself, as a Nova Scotian,
5?

have always had the greatest possible admiration for the Prime Minister and I sincerely regret his enforced absence from the House. The same regard, I have not the slightest doubt, is held for him by eveiy hon. member on this side of the House; and I think that nothing could be more unjust to the leader of the Opposition than to imply for a moment that he was finding fault with the Prime Minister because of his absence in the exigencies of the occasion. What the leader of the opposition suggested was that the leader of the Government should, if possible, be in the House, he being the man who is responsible to the people and on whose shoulders the people have placed the burden of conducting the Government. Under the present circumstances it seems that this is not possible. But there are various rumours in regard to the Prime Minister's desire to be relieved of his office. 'We have no other means of obtaining information in this country-on our side, at all events-than through the medium of the newspapers and reports which go abroad in the press of the party to which the right honourable gentleman belongs; and when those reports, purporting to come with authority from headquarters, stand uncontradicted, we have the right to believe the statements they contain. From these reports we learn that the Prime Minister was willing and, indeed, anxious to throw off the responsibility of leading the government, by reason of the state of his health, and that pressure was brought to bear upon him to renounce this privilege. He was cruelly prevailed upon by his friends to remain in his position regardless of the effect his enforced stay in office might have upon his health, and this, in order to prolong for a few years the life of a decayed, a decrepit, and a marked-for-death administration. These are the observations which the leader of the Opposition expressed, and I cannot entertain the idea that the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government would purposely put a false construction upon this his words. He may possibly have misunderstood what was said, but I want to make it perfectly clear to him and to the country at large that the Prime Minister has the deepest possible sympathy of his friends on this side, and that whatever time may be necessary for him to spend away from the House in the interests of his health, no matter what inconvenience it may involve, we shall concede him ungrudgingly; for it is our common desire on this side to see the Prime Minister re-
stored to his former vigour. I hope that this will satisfy every one within the sound of my voice that the leader of the Opposition had nothing in mind but the opinion to which I have just given expression.
We trust that we shall hear from the hon. gentlemen who have gone as plenipotentiaries from the Government to meet the Prime Minister in that most holy city of New York, where, it seems, every great thing appertaining to this country of ours must now transpire. Halifax is the capital of Nova Scotia and has for a long time been regarded as a highly loyal city. The Prime Minister was there. Why did not the representatives of the Government choose that city as the place in which to interview the Prime Minister? No. They had to ignore Halifax and bestow on the city of New York the honour which belonged to the capital of Nova Scotia. However, we hope that they have good news to bring us, and that the Prime Minister will come back and some day before long resume his position at the head of the Government.
Now, there are several points in the speech of the leader of the Government to which I might refer, but I do not think that it is necessary that I should deal with them at all. There is one point, however, upon which I must touch. The leader of the Opposition charged the Government and its supporters with not having been elected to the House on a proper franchise, on the ground that the War-time Election Act was not the proper, democratic and free kind of franchise that we should have in this country, it having deprived a great many citizens of the right of passing judgment upon the Government. We are told that if Parliament being allowed to exist for another year through extending its constitutional limit it could do just as it pleased. I join issue sharply with the leader of the Government on that point, and say that when the end of the five years came for which we were elected, those who were in a position to elect members to this House should not, by reason of an extension of the life of Parliament for another year, have been deprived of that right. If one year was added to the life of Parliament for war purposes that did not authorize the Government to change the jury that would pass upon it and impanel a new one. It is as if, during a criminal trial, the jury should be changed when things began to look bad for the accused. On the charge and on the evidence, the jury in the box would have to find him guilty but they turn him out, let him

loose in the town and give him the privilege of finding a jury that will bring in a verdict in his favour. That is what was done in this case. The Government took to themselves the right of cutting off the vote of every man that they thought would be opposed to them, finding a panel that they were perfectly sure would vote for them and bringing in a verdict in their favour. After having found that panel they wrote out a verdict in their own favour and got the foreman of the jury to sign it while, in regard to the distribution of the votes, as was told yesterday, bundles were put here and batches there, designed, placed and arranged all in accordance with the wish of the Government and where it was thought they would do the most good. That was not democratic or fair, nor did it secure a proper expression of the will of the people of this country. That is the position we take and that is a position which has not been answered by the right hon. the leader of the Government who says that although there was a year added, that year was to be made use of in the same way as the rest of the parliamentary term for which members were elected.
The leader of the Government claims great credit for what has been done in. regard to technical education. The right hon. gentleman knows very well that the technical education policy of this country did not have its origin in anything that was done by this Government or by the old Tory Government. He knows that it is the product of the policy of the Liberal party, that we pressed this policy upon them day in and day out and that they made no move until at last they had to do something to meet the demands that were continually being pressed upon them. I must submit that so far they have not done much to carry out the ideas which were formulated by the Liberal party in connection with this matter.
The same thing is true of shipbuilding. Every member of this House knows that during the Liberal administration, under the premiership of the late right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we had a shipping and naval policy in this country. It is well known that during the first four or five years of this present Administration, and up to the time they started shipbuilding, *we were pressing upon them, day in and day out, the necessity of carrying out such a policy. They left it until the very last days of the war and until the cost of shipbuilding had gone up to a point four times
what it was when they came into power. Ships are costing this country at the present time four times what they would have cost if the policy of the Liberal party had been carried out and if this shipbuilding programme had been carried forward at the time when it would have done the most good and entailed the least possible cost to the country. These are things for which the hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to get glory to-day.
The Union Government is trying to get glory for having encouraged agricultural production. If there is any credit due to anybody for the policy of the present Administration in connection with agriculture, that credit is due to the present Minister of Customs because in 1912 he brought in a vote of .$ 10,000,000 which passed this House and received the support of Liberals and Conservatives. The right hon. gentleman has such hard scratching to find some reason for his existence to-day that he has to go back to 1912 and patch up a claim that this Government has had something to do with an agricultural policy with which the present Administration has had nothing whatever to do.
He says that they have done great things for the returned soldier and that the returned soldier is satisfied. I want to join issue with my right hon. friend there and to put in the witness box the returned soldier himself. If my right hon. friend reads the literature that is published in this country from day to day and month to month of the leaders of the great body of returned soldiers, he will see what they think of the Administration. The leader of the Government has been deluged with requisitions, petitions and demands asking him to dismiss the minister who had charge of this work. That is the way in which the returned soldiers are satisfied with the conduct of the Government. The Government, if they are doing good things, are most unfortunate in the way in which their acts and favours are received by those upon whom they are professing to bestow them. They have not one friend among the returned soldiers and if to-morrow 4 p.m. they sought their opinion by means of a plebiscite, they would be wiped out of existence, horse, foot and artillery. That is where they stand with the returned soldier.
Then, they claim that they are entitled to credit for the great things that they have done for the Civil Service. There has never been such a muddle in this country, or in the whole world, as there is in con-

nection with the Civil Service to-day. Let toy right hon. friend ask those who sit around him from Ontario and from Nova Scotia, but particularly from the great province of Ontario. We have heard members from Ontario expressing themselves here as to what they thought of the Civil Service and its administration. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), the editor of the newspaper called the Sentinel, has expressed himself in this House time and again and he has said that the legislation in regard to the Civil Service is the most stupid that was ever put upon the statute books of this country. That is the opinion which prevailed to a very material extent among hon. gentlemen supporting this Government in so far as they have support from anybody except by force of circumstances. These are matters, Mr. Speaker, for which this Government claim great praise and credit and I think 1 have stated clearly that they are not such as to satisfy the requirements of any well balanced or sound thinking administration or that there is anything in the reasons put forward by the right hon. the leader of the Government which would justify him in thinking that all is well with the Administration that he for the present leads.
I wish to say a few words about the general policy of the Government as well as the general policy, on trade and other matters, of the Liberal party. We are questioned as to what our policy is. We are told that we disagree amongst ourselves. All we have to do is to recall the history of that great party from 1896 down to 1911 when it had charge of the affairs of this country in every phase, every line, of Government and to ask the people of Canada to put the confidence in the Liberal party that they reposed in it in those days. As we made a success of the Government during those days and built up the country in a way in which it had not been built up before, we ask the people to place the same confidence in the same men, with the same policy, the same principles and the same desire to honestly and well serve their country.
That is what we say about our policies to the people of this country. When we met in convention in this city last August we confirmed those policies, and they are today the policies of the Liberal Party from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We have not one policy for the Maritime provinces, another policy for Quebec and Ontario, and still another policy for the West. Our policies -are intended for one united people,

*and we refer t-o our -past record a-s an *earnest of how we propose to carry out those policies in the future.
The right hon, gentleman who leads the Government tells us that what we read in *the newspapers is idle gossip which we cannot believe. I do not go that far with him, because the newspapers containing those reports stand very faithfully behind him *and his Government and give the very best possible account of whatever redounds to his -credit, and therefore he has no reason to give ia black eye to the press by calling their reports idle twaddle or gossip which nobody can believe.
The newspapers tell us that the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen), recently .made -a speech in Quebec in which he said the -country would have to be protected to the hilt; then he moved towards the West, and at Winnipeg found be had to change his tune, -as we in coming from the Maritime provinces to Montreal have to change our watches to have the correct time. When the hon. gentleman reached Winnipeg he found he had to put a new record in his gramophone, -and the burden of his address was no longer protection to the hilt, but only moderate protection. I suppose had he continued further West by the time he got to Saskatchewan -and Alberta there would have been no trace of protection at all in his speeches. I would warn my hon. friend to be careful lest some day he puts on a Quebec record at Calgary or Edmonton and finds himself in a bad mess indeed, because the Quebec record which he played to the shoe manufacturers will noit do for the Free Traders of the West, So far as the Liberal party is concerned, we have no occasion to change our tune, for the simple reason- that from the West to the East we have only one sound policy to commend to -the attention of -the people, and we believe that when they -see fit to -restore us to power that policy will bring back to this country the same prosperity that it enjoyed during the fifteen years the Liberal -party wa-s in control, and w-ill revive in the people that faith in- the Government which was once so -strongly entertained by them.
It is true, Sir, (that we have not the great leader of the past years. Men die, but principles never, -and we hop-e on this side o-f the House -that, as we have been faithful in the past to the leadership of the great man who has left us -and to the principles which he espoused, there is enough Liberalism in the -country to give effective support -to t-ho-se -same principles

and to compel the same success which we had while proudly marching forward under the leadership of the great man who has left us. We have to-day as our leader a man chosen in ia democratic way by >t)he whole country, a man who- is in touch with the people, and who is willing and capable to carry forward those policies that will meet lyith the approval of our great democracy.
Before closing, Sir, Where is one matter I wish to point out to the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. He found great amusement yesterday that any one could suggest for a moment that anything about tariffs should he mentioned in a speech from the Throne. A great many of our people, much to their sorrow, will remember that- in the years gone by the right hon. gentleman himself bad something to do with the finances of this 'country, 'he having been Minister of Finance in the year 1894. In the speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament in that year, prepared under the eye of the right hon. gentleman Who now leads the Government and who ia.t that time was an important member of the Government, we find the following passage:
At an early date a measure will be laid before you having for its object the revision of the duties of customs,-[DOT]
It is a most extraordinary thing that the leader of the Government found such a fund of merriment yesterday in the suggestion that anything iabout customs should be mentioned in the speech from the Throne.
-with a view to meet the changes which time has effected in the business operations throughout the Dominion. While my ministers do not propose to change the principles on which the enactments on this subject are based, the amendments which will be offered for your consideration are designed to simplify the operation of the Tariff and to lessen as fa.r as can be done, consistently with those principles and with the requirements of the Treasury, the imposts which are now in force.
That, Sir, was prepared and put in the speech from the Throne in that year by the right hon. gentleman who made such fun yesterday of the suggestion tbait the people who aTe groaning under the present heavy taxation and the high cast of living, and who are looking earnestly and anxiously for some relief from the Government and Parliament, could expect any expression of opinion of that kind in the speech from the Throne. We had a right to expect it, we bad a right to believe that an effort would be made to better the condition of the people and to make Canada a country easy to live in and attractive to the proper kind of immigration from all parts of the
world. Do not let ug forget, Mr. Speaker, that while we have a population of only some 8,500,000, we have a country extensive enough to support over 100,000,000 or the same population as that of the United States. Therefore it is the duty of whatever Government is in power to make conditions such as to invite the right class of people to come here.
Talking about trade questions, I am willing, Sir, that we should have the freest possible intercourse with every country in the world.
Let me say this to the Government and to the country

and I am not particular in what way it will be understood; in fact, it can only be understood in one way-that while I am anxious for the widest possible trade with foreign countries, I would not trade to the extent of one five-ceDt piece with any country which will not recognize my Canadian dollar to the full face value of that dollar. If this country is loyal to itself, loyal to its principles, loyal to its institutions, it will stand by Canadianism in the matter of having any trade with any country that will not recognize the Canadian dollar at its full face value as international currency. I am not in favour of any restriction of trade, but I am in favour of Canada's trading where there is fair trade where she is properly treated. If there is any reason why any country is willing to sell goods to us and yet will not recognize the face value of the dollars with which we pay for them, that reason should be clearly stated. Although this condition of things has existed for some time and has caused the loss of millions to the people of Canada, not a word has come from the Government with regard to the making of any effort to bring about better conditions or to relieve the people of Canada of this great drain upon their resources. I am not saying whether or not the Government could do anything, but surely they could make an effort; surely they could satisfy the people, if it is possible to satisfy them in that regard, of what should or could be done concerning the adverse exchange conditions which have prevailed during the last few months.
I again thank you, Sir, and the members of the House for the patient attention with which my remarks have been received. I hope I have made it clear to everybody in Canada that the Liberal party has only one standard, only one principle as applied to all of Canada. That principle, which admits of no place for sectionalism or anything of that kind, is Canada first, Canada last and Canada always.

Mr. HERBERT M. MOW AT (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, in interjecting a few remarks at this stage into an interesting and vivacious debate. I take the place of other hon. gentlemen who were to have spoken at this time, and my remarks will have the virtue of brevity.
As the extending of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Cronyn) and -the seconder (Mr. McGregor) of the Address (has not become trite at this early stage in the debate, it is not out of the way for me to say that we have in the mover of -the Address (Mr. Hume Cronyn) an example to most of us in this House. The hon. member for London is a reader of books and a thinker along the lines of that which he reads, and although he has not troubled the House-or, (rather favoured the House-with many remarks during past years, he is able, when called upon, to bring the mind of a cultured student to bear upon the subjects dealt with, and to deliver a speech which is an occasion of pleasure to all who hear it and which will go down in the records of the House as one of the best that at all events the younger members have heard.
In the member for Pictou (Mr. McGregor) we have another kind of speaker, namely, the business man who deals in a concise way with the questions that he is so well capable of dealing with and with which he is perfectly familiar. The hon. member for Pictou, when he tackles a business question, is like the description of his celebrated forbear spoken of by Sir Walter Scott, Rob Roy, when he said: "My foot is on my native heath; my name, McGregor."
It gave pleasure on this side of the House to see the unmistakable warmth of the reception accorded to the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King) by his own friends. He contributed a speech which was able from a debating standpoint; perhaps in only one respect did he transgress the amenities of debate. The fact that he was warmly applauded by his supporters is readily accounted for, because this is the first time that he has taken his position in the House as Leader of the Opposition. It is natural that when he took his first flight his supporters should be there heartily to applaud him.
But I must say that in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition there are some things to which I cannot give support. During -the last few years we have learned a great deal in this country about the principles of "safety first." These words have been placed before the people on bill boards and in any place where there is a possi-
	i
bility of danger, with the result that the people have become more cautious and accidents have become less frequent. If ever a safe motion was introduced to this House, a motion which was absolutely innocuous to my hon. friend and his supporters, it is the amendment which he has offered to the motion for an Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. Of course, every one who is beaten wants to have a new election. That is a well recognized principle of human nature; the man who loses the race always wants to have it run over again. In a certain game on which I am not at all an authority I have been told that the man who has been losing all the evening is the man who wants still another round of jackpots when everybody else wants to go home. My hon. friend and his supporters know very well that there is no possible chance of such an amendment carrying.
But I want to go further with my hon. friend. I want to point out to him that he is not prepared for an election. If he will go to the province from which he comes and will consult the party leaders there, he will be told straight that he is not prepared for an election. When my hon. friend says that he wants an election, does he mean that he is prepared for an election in the constituency of North York, where he has been invited to become a candidate instead of in his temporary sanctuary in Prince Edward Island? If that is what he means, then I tell him that if he expects to be elected there he never was more mistaken in his life.
My hon. friend has not been here regularly. Where has he been during the war? For he seems not to have learned the great lesson of the war that no campaign, no sortie, can be successfully carried out unless ample preparation is made. The most successful leaders in the war were those who knew their details; those who had for weeks and months made their preparations so thorough that nothing was left undone to ensure success. That is the great lesson of the war. That being so, I ask my hon. friend to inquire into what took place not very long before he came into this House. Has he heard at all of an election in a celebrated constituency in Saskatchewan, known as Assiniboia? If he has, he will know the danger of being unprepared. His friends sent to that constituency two of his present supporters who have attained a respectable position in their party.
But of these two one was the father, if I may so state the position of a motion in re-

gard to absolute free trade, a motion which, from what I can hear, from his previous remarks and from his proclivities in his province, I imagine, was not concurred in by the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) who has preceded me in this debate, not concurred in by the hon. member from Sherbrooke (Mr. MeCrea), and' not concurred in by some others whom I see sitting opposite to me and who are smiling as I now speak. But he was the person sent to Assiniboia to support the Liberal candidate there against the farmers' candidate. He was so unprepared and these gentlemen who went out as his emissaries were also so unprepared that they were like the "Babes in the Wood;" they were apparently absolutely without any protection and comfort, and the result was the election of a man against the candidate of my hon. friends opposite to the tune of a majority of about four thousand.


Ernest Lapointe: Great victory for the
Government.


Mr. MOWAT:: If that is the sort of an
election which my hon. friend is in such a hurry to bring on, the sooner he brings it on the better. I shall not support the amendment because, much as I regret to say it, I do not believe in its sincerity. But I should like to support any motion which would bring on an election now, because at the present time my fortunes are linked up on this side of the House, and if there were an election now I have not the slightest doubt that there would be a repetition of the result of the election of 1917. I see humour and risibility depicted in the faces of my hon. friends from Quebec. I am not at all sure that the result in Quebec would be the same as before.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the Government
have candidates in the three bye-elections which are about to take place?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The hon. member for
North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) deems it proper at times to throw the charge, if it be a charge, or sneer, if it be a sneer, across the floor of this House at members on this side as being the Tory party. It may please him to do so, but I can assure the House and the country that such is at present not the ease. So when my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) from Quebec East, who seems to have arisen to a high place, although I do not know what it is, in the councils of his party,asks me questions about what the Government are going to do, I may say that I
am not in the confidence of the Government, but no doubt they will answer for themselves.


Ernest Lapointe: You will see what will happen.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: My point is that the position of my hon. friend who moved this amendment is such that we on this side cannot believe that he really wants that we should support it and bring on an election two years after the last one.
My hon. friend made some remarks which were not at all generous toward the member of the Government (Mr. Blondin) who comes from the province of Quebec. I am surprised at that, because if there is one thing more than another to which we should now direct our attention, our hearts and our heads, it is to bring about a better understanding and rapprochement between the English and the French-speaking peoples. I have no hesitation in saying that because I have always believed it. But I was amazed, and I think we on this side were all very much surprised, to find the ungenerous allusions to the defeat of the Postmaster General in the last election treated with more applause than any other remarks made by the leader of my hon. friends opposite.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: We know him all
right.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I ask what my hon.
friends mean by that. Do they mean that because they know that Mr. Blondin was defeated by those majorities, the allusion to which defeat .caused so much cheering, of 6,000 in Chambly and Vercheres and 1,200 in Laurier Outremont-


An hon. MEMBER:: You have the wrong county.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Did they mean that, knowing that the reason that Mr. Blondin was defeated was because he held the very opinions as to the prosecution of the war that the majority of the people of this country support? That was the reason he was defeated. In holding that view, do they mean, because elections on those opinions are profitable in their province, forever to continue this dissension between the peoples of this country? I can attribute no other reason for their action. They must know and I assure them sincerely that we on this side think it is a great calamity that we have not French-Canadian members in the Government of Canada to-day. The reason is that there are no French-Canadian supporters of the Government elected to the

House of Commons, from Quebec, so how can there be French-Canadian members of the Government? But it is not too late and I have no doubt that there are members of this Government who would freely anti willingly retire to-day if they could rest assured that members of the French-Canadian race would be elected and would so act in harmony with the present Government Brat they would take their accustomed places in the Cabinet Council. So I am surprised that applause should be given to such a statement. It is true that political feeling runs high, hut my hon. friends opposite must, remember that while majorities were large in the province of Quebec in favour of a man holding certain principles, there were large majorities in the other provinces just because other men held diffeient principles. There were Unionist majorities of 20,000, 16,000, 14,000, I think more than that in the city of Winnipeg, overwhelming majorities. General public sentiment demands that racial dissensions between the two peoples shall stop and that large majorities because of the holding of these strong opinions shall cease, and that all the people in this country will get together to do what we know is our duty, which is the dearest hope of most of us, namely, to first uphold the honour of all Canada.
I did not notice in the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and his follower who so chivalrously made way for him, an invitation which was given out last year or perhaps the year before, and which had for its figurative expression " a light in the window." That was a genial invitation to return, to Liberals who had formerly been with the party which now calls itself Liberal. He said that there was a light in the window and that the latch string was on the outside of the door. It is perfectly obvious that that invitation has not had any great effect. It has brought only two of that class of members from this side of the House and they had made up their minds fairly definitely before the invitation was given. The trouble with the Liberals who were thus invited was that they were not sure of the treatment they would receive after they went back in response to the light in the window. The house was all right. We helped to build the house, but the point is that you cannot live in a house unless the coal bin is pretty full and there is enough in the larder, and we did not see any particular reasons for having a good social time in the house in which the light was put in the window. The consequence was that

there were not many defections from this side, and perhaps it is because the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) has seen the futility of repeating the invitation, or because my hon. friend who is now his leader is not of the same hospitable character as his predecessor that that invitation has not been mentioned again. It is important to refer to some extent to that, because I think that it is a proper time now after two years, that I should make some observations regarding the first of the cleavages which we saw two years ago.
Political cleavages in parties are not unknown in Canada. They have generally occurred owing to a large mass of the people of one party hoping for commercial advantages, or on the other hand, because of some religious question which has stirred the hearts of the people. The Liberal Party and the Liberal Government of 1878 lost thousands and thousands of supporters who thought that their commercial welfare would be better served by more Protection, and the great majority of those supporters never came back to the party. The Conservative party in 1896 lost a very considerable number of its supporters, who objected that the Dominion Government was interfering with the rights of a province in the matter of separate school education. There we have an example, in the first place, of commercial advantage, and in the second place, of religious fervour, which are the two chief causes of cleavages in parties. Then we come to 1917, when for the first time we had a great world war, which was more potent than any other factor in creating cleavages in parties. It is true that some of us had to separate from our old friends, and we have been referred to as " The prodigal son," as the boy who has strayed away, or, setting the theme to music, " Oh, Where is My Wandering Boy To-night?" But it must be remembered that it wTas not only one boy who left the old home, but most of the boys. Anyway, "the" boys, the best boys, left the party because of its policy in connection with the carrying on of the war. If you will look at the election results you will see that the vast majority of the Liberals who could not follow their old party on this issue were elected without the help of the military vote. If you look at the other side of the House you will find that only two Liberals were elected in Ontario, the greatest and most populous province in Canada, on what might be called old party lines, and the others come from constituencies in which, for racial reasons,

feeling was aroused to a very great extent against Great Britain. I am not competent to speak of other provinces, but as a general result the vast majority of the Liberal-Unionists candidates were elected. We on this side of the House cannot object to those who are left calling themselves the Liberal Party if they like, because everybody has the right to call himself whatever he chooses, but it does seem absurd that those who are in the minority should attempt to make out that we have not been treated properly on this side of the House, and that we have been absorbed into a party by another name. As a matter of fact, while we have been over here we have been well received. We have found no attempt at proselytizing. Our opinions have been received with civility, and furthermore, we have found something that has amazed us, and which would have amazed some of my hon. friends opposite had they come over here, and that is that there are more real Liberals on this side of the House than there are on the other. I will go further. I have found men on this side of the House who call themselves Conservative for party reasons, who are more radical than any I have ever found among my old friends the Liberals. I have been astounded to learn of the uprooting that some alleged Tories on this side of the House were willing to do in one way or another, so one is naturally bound to come to the conclusion that these old party names stand for nothing when a great cataclysm comes and a man takes the course he thinks is right. I am quite aware that the so-called Liberals, if they will not mind my using that term,-anyway, the Liberals,- have been saying disagreeable things, as they have a right to do, about defections and turn-overs, but I can assure them that there is nothing on this side of the House that has given offence to those Liberals who went out for the principles of which I have spoken. Not only have we been well received, but we have heard nothing of the extreme views which my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) attributes to our colleagues on this side of the House. They have not tried to rub in, so to speak, their own particular opinions. I have heard that there are some strong party men on this side, just as there are strong party men on the other side of the House, who would prefer to be alone, but, of course, they have been civil enough not to let us find that out, except that we have heard some reference here to-day to certain efforts of a former Cabinet minister hailing from Winnipeg. So far as our colleagues on this side of the House, are concerned, we have had very pleasant relations with those with whom we formerly disagreed.
The war changed things in many ways, and with the exception of those who had the most tense political feelings and political inclinations, the war made men think as they wanted to think without regard to political party trammels.
It is proper for me now, I think, after two years, and as the subject has never been discussed in Parliament before, to give a short history of the rise of the cleavage in the Liberal party, and I can do it best, and it seems to me it would be the most convincing to those who are listening to me, by giving my own personal experience. In September, 1917, returning from my usual summer vacation, when one does not read many newspapers, I was surprised to find that there were some people in the country who were opposed to Canada taking further part in the great war. I discussed this matter with three men of political prominence, candidates under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I expressed my views, because I held them definitely and strongly. I said " We cannot let Canada down now that we have sent her in; we cannot let our boys at the Front get discouraged and weaken; we have-to send more men." The first man replied, " Of course we should, but what has that to do with politics?" Then he told me he had been going around among the people and had found that conscription was unpopular, and that Conservatives who did not want their sons to go to the Front were going to vote for the Liberal party if the Conservative party stood for conscription. The next man, who was also a candidate, agreed that many Conservatives who did not want their sons to go to the Front would vote for the Liberal party to avoid conscription, and he gave instances to show that conscription was not going to win. These men were of that type. I shall not mention their names, but I am not abusing any confidence because anything which they said to me they will say at any time. They thought that while it was proper for Canada to continue her effort in the war, as was done afterwards by the Union Government, the more important thing was that the Liberals should get into power. That disposes of two from whom I got opinions. The third to whom I spoke-a candidate afterwards-rather shocked me when he said: "Well, I think we have done enough; let Uncle Sam do the rest." Well, I do not care to express

contempt for any man, but if ever I felt like doing so in my life it was on the occasion of this assertion. If these be candidates of the Liberal party, 1 felt, how is it possible for us, who think differently from them, to march in double harness with them again unless they change their minds? We could not endorse any policy of nonsupport of our men who were in the war and so there was an election. Now, mark this: The Liberals who left their party were as convinced as those who remained in it that conscription was an unpopular issue. They thought that they would be defeated, but apprehension of defeat did not alter their intention and determination that the war should be fought to a successful issue. Fo it came about, in an imposing outburst of public enthusiasm, that the Union Government, which was pledged to continue the war, was sustained except in one province. None were more surprised than the Liberals who had run as candidates in support of the Union Government, and I must say that the result was gratifying to them. When a prominent member on the other side made a remark in Ottawa last winter that the Liberals who left their party had done so for their personal aggrandisement I assured him he was wrong. We were elected through the patriotism of the people, in Ontario at any rate; but at the time we ran there was no idea of personal gain -at all. We had played the political game before, but on that occasion we claim that we played the game of what was right for Canada without regard to the political party to which we belonged. I therefore give no credit to men like the three of whom I have spoken; they were wrong in their heads as well as in their hearts. They made a bad guess politically. They thought they were going to win and they lost, and I give them no credit for possessing any right principle or anything else to boast of. It was a pure political game with them. As I say, they were of opinion that they would win, but they lost; and it now ill becomes them to throw slurs at those who thought or acted differently from them.
I shall now conclude by saying that while this is not a political party on this side of the House-most of us have voted against the Government repeatedly, although the Government has not been sensitive on that point, knowing that our hearts and our allegiance were generally in the right place -while we are not a party, 1 do not see why we should not become one. Men of like opinions, men with the same ideals in re-

gard to the future of Canada, men who do not wish to see racial dissension or cleavage in the country, if they can meet on this side for two years and have no serious disagreement as to what is needed for good government, regardless of former party shibboleths, may very well compose a party. While therefore we are not yet a party, if there is any proposal that we should become a party and the leaders can devise a policy consistent with the ideals I ha\ e seen on this side, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal-Unionists are going to join that party. We are assured there will be nothing new which will be inconsistent with anything we were ever told in political meetings on the liberal si te. I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King; now seriously-nay, humourously-did he ever hear political principles of a liberal kind discussed in a Liberal political meeting? No, he did not. Well, neither did I. We always played the party game. We were party men; and what a lot of rot it is to talk about Liberal principles or Conservative principles all the time! We were party men. But sometimes in a crisis we cannot be party men, and if we can find something better to substitute for what exists there is no reason why we should not take it. And we will take it. I, in common with the Liberals on this side, have had pleasure in supporting this Government, and supporting it enthusiastically, even though it be unpopular. During war I do not want to support a Government merely because it is popular. I want to support a Government that does the right thing even if it is going to be unpopular. And what a number of unpopular things this Government has had to do! One thing after another, which would almost strain to breaking point the ordinary man, these men in the Government benches, heedless of party politics, caring not whether their actions might incur the disapproval of their supporters or constituencies, or what effect those actions might have in the event of an election, have day in and day out framed policies and passed measures-Orders in Council, if you will- that were bound to be unpopular, but which were in their belief for the ultimate good of the country. The only thing that saved Canada during the war was the fact that there was a Government that was not afraid to do things that would be unpopular. And I mistake very much the temper and the generous spirit of my fellow-countrymen if they will not ultimately support a body of men such as compose the present

Government. It is true that at the present juncture criticism is freely indulged in. Attacks are made in every quarter; everyone is abusing everyone else-the Bolshevists condemn the Government. The returned soldiers abuse the pacifists. But when this state of feeling subsides, I have enough faith in my fellow-countrymen and enough confidence in their gratitude to know that they will support the party that did the right thing whether it was popular or not. I admit there is some talk of the unpopularity of the Government at the present moment, but that does not bother me a bit, because we know that it is merely a passing cloud. While it is fostered by my friends on the other side-sometimes, I regret to say, not altogether fairly-I know it is but transient. And when the next election comes, whether at the time demanded in my friend's motion, or a little later-probably a little later-the present Government, comprising men who formerly held different political views, is going to be swept ultimately into power again. The history of Canada shows that the people have favoured keeping governments a long time in power during the last forty years, and history will repeat itself at the next election. Then, my hon. friends, I think, will be somewhat ashamed of themselves when they go down to defeat-except in one province-because they did not try to unite with us to put an end to dissension, to throttle the racial feeling the moment it appeared, and to lend their support to a government working for the advantage of the whole country and of the whole Empire, and for the well-being of mankind at large.


Mr. LOUIS JOSEPH GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, it is
my intention to speak in my own language on this occasion but before entering upon any remarks I wish to answer very briefly the speaker'who has just preceded me (Mr. Mowat). The hon. gentleman says that we are not ready for an election and he concluded his remarks by stating that whenever there should be an appeal to the people the Government he is supporting would come back triumphantly to power. If it is true that we are not ready for an election, and if the Government is sure to come back triumphantly to power, why do they refuse the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition 5 p.m. (Mr. King)? We do not ask a dissolution because we hope to come back to power; we ask a dissolution in order that the people shall have an opportunity to say whether or not they have
any confidence in this Government. We do not care to come back to power but we want to fulfil our duty. That is the difference between us and the hon. gentleman. He says also that now is the time to try and get nearer to the province of Quebec. Speaking in my own name, and for my province, I will quote the words of one of our public men who says that the province of Quebec is not in a state of mind to enter into any conference; it has been misjudged; it has been badly treated; it has been slandered; it is waiting for its hour and after that it will confer but not before.
The hon. gentleman says that whenever the Government shall be ready to propound a policy, that policy will appeal to the people of Canada. Yesterday the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government (Sir George Foster) told us that they liad a policy but the hon. member for Parkdale who supports this Government is not aware that there is a policy. He tells us that there is going to be a policy propounded and in advance he tells the country that he is going to support it. I believe he is a bad supporter of the present Administration as he was a bad supporter of the Liberal party. If he desires to come back to the Liberal fold we will receive him because the door is open, but if he should be only as good a supporter of the Liberal party as he is of this Government we will not rely very much upon him. I will now proceed with my remarks in my own language.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the address in answer to the speech from the Throne told us that the war had destroyed the old order of things political in this country and that Canada was entering into a new era. That is exactly what we believe, that is precisely what we maintain and that is also what the leader of the Liberal party, the leader of the Opposition, has submitted to this House and to the country in moving for the dissolution of Parliament.
He laid emphasis on the fact that the hybrid alliance which gave birth to the government we have been enjoying since 1917 had brought about the overturn of the old political order of things.
What is the present situation and how did it originate? For the winning of the war, the constitution of the country had to be battered in; to win the war, individual righto had to be done away with; to win the war, the constitution had to be

suspended; individual sacrifices had to be appealed to, in order to achieve victory and bring to a triumphant conclusion the cause supported by the Allies. These hon. gentlemen that sit on the Treasury benches maintained that, in order to have a free hand and plenty elbow room, all the existing laws had of necessity to be suspended and the Parliament oif this country had to give up its prerogatives, so as to hand over to ministers sitting in the Unionist cabinet the full control of public affairs.
Aware as we are that, in order to build up that Unionist party and that Union government, all men of good will had to be appealed to; when we call to mind that sincere Liberals, for the time being, severed connection with and cut loose from their *party to join hand in hand with men they had hitherto opposed, it is most regrettable to find that the acting .Prime Minister of this country has deemed it fit to slap them in the face, as he did yesterday. How so, Sir? The Acting Prime Minister told us that in 1917, not only was the Unionist party elected on the platform of prosecution of the war, but that the new allies had agreed on (a political programme, and that the election of 1917 was won not only to carry the war to a victorious conclusion, but on a well-defined political programme. Is there a single individual, out of this House, who is going to believe-for in this House under our rules, one is bound to accept the statements made by an hon. member from his seat, and so far as I ,am concerned, I am bound, so long as I sit here, to believe that the Acting Prime Minister did really make a statement borne out by the facts- but let- me ask the hon. members who sit within these precincts whether 'there is a single individual, outside this House, when not bound by the rules of the House, who would believe that my -hon. friend, the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. W. S. Fielding), a former Prime Minister of his province, one of the outstanding figures of the Liberal party, .a minister of Finance for fifteen yearns, who has waged war on the protection 'tariff so dear to the hearts of these gentlemen, who is the man, I say, who is going to believe that the hon. member for iShelburne and Queen's did really come to an understanding with the Acting Prime Minister on a well defined political programme previous to the election? Had such an understanding been reached, how happens it that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's severed his connection with and cut loose from the Unionist party, and returned to the 
party fold, sitting now in the ranks of the Liberal Opposition?
In the reference to the words fallen from the lips of the Acting Prime Minister, and directed to those colleagues of his who supported him in times of stress, it strikes me that it was paying them a very poor compliment to say that they proved false to and have gone back on the pledges given prior to the election of 1917. By no means, Sir. Who is going .to believe that the hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) did really forswear his allegiance 'to free trade, in order to .adhere and subscribe to a prearranged political platform of the hon. gentlemen? Who is going to be fooled into believing that the former Minister of Agriculture who is now sitting alongside the representatives of the United Farmers, and old .Liberals, old oppositionists to the present Government, had joined the Union government with a well defined political programme?
Oh no ! these gentlemen may well try to throw .duet in 'the eyes of the people, they may well try to belittle the grandeur of those who, in a moment of distress, believed in the sincerity of the scattered remnants of the Tory party,, believed at a time that really their help was necessary to enroll the live forces of the nation, to enlist our youth and send 500,000 of our sons to the battlefields of Europe, while draining the wealth of the country; of such men as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, as the hon. member for Red Deer, as my hon. friend the member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) who, in a manner to which I will later call attention, has just left the government which he had joined. These men had believed that their help was necessary, and because they believed that their help was necessary I bow to them for the course they took; I recognize that they obeyed the dictates of their conscience. But, after having accomplished the work for which they had abandoned their party, when they think proper to come back to that party, it seems to me that they deserve other treatment at the hands of those whom they have .helped to retain power, that they deserve other treatment than to be told that when they entered the Government there was a perfectly definite political programme which they deserted before its realization.
I am bound to believe that there was a programme, but I doubt very much whether the public will give much credence to this statement of the Acting Prime Minister.
It is said that there exists a general uneasiness in the country. To this the

Acting Prime Minister answers, well, the cost of living hais risen in all countries, we suffer as they suffer elsewhere. This is no answer. Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out a clear proof of the uneasiness which obtains in the country. You see at the end of the benches, oni your left, men who sit in this House aloof from the parties. Why have they been elected to this House? What is the reason of their aloofness? The reason is that there exists at this moment in the country an intense uneasiness caused by the faulty legislation, by the scandalous administration, of the present Government. The people are looking about in search of a remedy. These United Farmers of Ontario, who have awakened the political hopes of the farmers of Canada, on what have they built their hopes? These political hopes are born of contempt for broken promises; they are born of the fact that a Minister of Militia, in the first days of December 1917, with a view to capturing, the votes of the farmers' sons and of the farmers of Ontario, went over that province exhibiting an Order in Council, and declaring that he, the Minister of Militia, had obtained it so that the sons of farmers would never go to the war. The election took place. The Unionist party was returned. And the result was that immediately after the proclamation of the vote, the farmers' sons were called to arms notwithstanding the Order in Council, which had been repealed in spite of the promise of this Minister.
And you wonder now that among the people, when men holding public offices are capable, in, order to gain a momentary success, of making game of the public confidence, of treading under foot their promises and their oaths, you are astonished that there is uneasiness?
Well, the uneasiness is taking shape. To-day it is to be seen in the claims of the farmers grouping themselves into a unit, and deciding that henceforth neither the party in power nor the party in opposition are capable of satisfying their hopes and their ambitions. And as is the ease for all class1 movements, the responsibility for this movement rests upon the Government, by reason of their policy, their legislation and their administration.
The greatest crime with which I reproach those who sit on the ministerial benches, is of having started in this country this movement, which is setting classes against each other and stirring up throughout the country a turmoil of which no one may foretell the consequences.
The uneasiness is wide spread, you say; yes, it is, and it is becoming more and
more so. And, Sir, what comforts me now is to see that in the maelstrom which draws in province after province,, in this orgy of folly, of destruction which rouses province against province, which rouses race against race, regions, classes, against each other, alone the province of which I am one of the representatives, remains at its work, continues to love the soil, continues to cherish its institutions and, notwithstanding the abuse which has been heaped upon it, gives its calumniators, its persecutors the example of true patriotism, by remaining attached to the soil, intent upon work, and developing energy, in order to bring about the production which is so much needed. That is the answer to the slanders and insults cast upon the province of Quebec.
The right hon. Acting Prime Minister used an unfortunate expression, when, speaking of the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition, he called it '"camouflage". If the action of the leader of the Liberal party may be termed camouflage,, there is a stand of the Government which I look upon as deserving much more to be so characterized.
I know that within these precincts it is rather difficult to speak openly, but I shall not disguise my thoughts, whatever the outcome. If there be any camouflaging, it is in representing the Prime Minister of this country as being so broken in health as to prevent his taking his seat in this House for the last three sessions, and in saying that he requires two different kinds of attendants, for the Prime Minister, since his stay in Europe,, has developed an immoderate liking for international and foreign affairs. Therefore he has an attendant for external affairs and until recently had two more for the home policies.
As regards external affairs, I am bound, as I said a moment ago, to take the hon. Acting Prime Minister's word and to acknowledge that the Prime Minister is sick, and that is the sole reason for his not being present. But can you possibly imagine that the people will believe that the Prime Minister is so ill that he cannot attend to the business of Parliament when they hear that he has gone away on an imperial mission with Lord Jellicoe to establish naval forces in all the colonies of the Empire? If he is too ill to come to this Parliament how is it that they throw upon him the burden of discussing the naval policy.
We cannot believe that /Lord Jellicoe took Sir Robert Borden away with him simply on account of his own personality. Nobody would believe that, because Lord Jellicoe

has other business to do than that of looking after a sick man. He simply took Sir Robert Borden with him because he is Prime Minister of Canada. Here is a man who, according to the description given by the Acting Prime Minister, is unable to follow the sittings of this House and who, however,, is being overburdened with the consideration of the whole naval policy. But that is not all. Our Prime Minister comes back to the American continent, he calls at Halifax and immediately upon his arrival at New York, he is met by his two attendants for home affairs who discuss with him during two days the policy which is to be adopted by the Government of this Dominion.
I always thought that public life involved for those who entered it, the sacrifice of every hope of home life, of their profession or business in favour of the common weal. But I never fancied that when a public man became ill, everybody should strive to hasten his death. Such a thought never occurred to me. However it seems to be the case; if we are to believe the statements made by the right hon. gentleman from the oppoisite side of the House. Here is a sick and feeble man who,, according to press reports and conversations among his friends, is gone to South Africa when he has not actually reached New7 York, who has arrived in Florida when he is still aboard Lord Jellicoe's ship, who is supposed to be in New York and is found the next day in London, who when reported to be still in London is in Halifax and in New York when they look for him in Halifax. Nobody can see him. It is jugglery, witchcraft, camouflage.
I was never a supporter of the Prime Minister, but had I been one of his friends,. I think I should have treated him better than his so-called friends do to-day. I should have shown some compassion, even for the sake of decency if he were not sick. But personally I believe he is ill, because the hon. Acting Prime Minister gave us his word and we have to take it.
Now there is one observation the people will not fail to make. The leader of the Opposition, as in duty bound, moved an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, asking for the immediate dissolution of this Parliament, on the ground that it does not, and neither does the present Government, represent the people.
The right honourable Acting Prime Minister calls that strategy, though suspecting it

is rather camouflage. Then the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) is sure that the Liberal Opposition is not ready for the fray and that if we had an election in the near future the present Government would be returned by an immense majority. I take *for granted the statement made by the acting Prime minister that ithe 'Government cannot agree with the strategic move of the Opposition. The Government and their supporters will go to the people with the same platform upon which they were elected in 1917 and the member for Parkdale says that if we had an election to-morrow the Opposition would be crushed.
Well we fully realize the bearing of hon. gentleman's argument. We are perfectly well aware that the Liberal party, in order to live up to its war 'time obligations, suffered the Government to encroach upon the prerogative of Parliament, upon the rights of the representatives of the people, upon the franchises of the people; and we realize that public opinion instead of giving us credit for such sacrifices and generosity, and because it has been poisoned by a salaried press, is under the impression that the Opposition is not any better than the Government. In spite of this and of the agitation of the united farmers and of the efforts of the Government to hold on to power, notwithstanding what may happen, we are ready to take a risk. And why? Because above the Unionist, Farmers' or Liberal parties there lies the public interest. We much prefer that a new parliament should be the outcome of the election, a house truly representative of the people and conducting the affairs of the country according to the wishes of the people and in the interest of the people, rather than our being returned to power and taking Sir Robert Borden's heritage, which is far from being enviable.
The Opposition may well take a pride in their action. iStill that which denotes broadness of mind, and magnanimity is greeted by our opponents with unkindness and contempt. Whatever the Union party may-say or do, we shall have to go back to the form of responsible government, to the government by the people. Personally I think there is nothing more pitiful in what is going on under our eyes in Canada at the present time than the fact of the acting Prime Minister being forced to defend an indefensible case and being absolutely unable to make his views prevail. It is not customary with me to praise my opponents, but as far as the right hon. Acting Prime

Minister is concerned, I think he fully understands the bearing of our leader's declarations. He realized his position was a difficult one and accordingly marshalled all the resources of his imagination, all his expertness in dialectics and parliamentary training. May I be allowed to state that he sorely disappointed us? It is not surprising. .Such an accomplishment exceeded even his means and resourcefulness. The stand taken by the Opposition is unassailable, but that which the Government forces the Acting Prime Minister to defend is anti-constitutional and inimical to the principles of responsible government. No one in this House knows it better than the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government in 'the absence of one who ought to be here to-day.
May we not entertain the hope that in the councils of a party which boasts of having attracted the best brains in the country, there will be among its leaders some one who, in order to preserve our system of responsible government,, will impress upon the minds of those who do not understand, the danger of so jeopardizing the existence of our representative institutions.
At first the people may take no particular interest in the matter, but'to-morrow they will grumble; then unrest sets in and in the course of events which are shaping themselves you will reap what you are sowing to-day.
Whatever the Government may say or do, nobody believes that they represent the people or that they were elected through a franchise which represented public opinion. Nobody believes it. They may say: We have a sound and well balanced Government. But they are alone to say so and I think they do not even believe what they say. How could the taxpayers and those who have made sacrifices, who have contributed money and the blood of their children towards ensuring victory to the Allies, how could these people, I ask, believe it?
But the people of this country are going to call these men to a strict account for their administration of public affairs.
Besides, Sir, one need not be a great scholar to know that no administration that has comte into (office 'in war time succeeds in remaining in power after peace has come in. Why, Sir? A state of war means the destroying of all that has been painfully built up in the piping times of peace; a state of war spells the suspension of fundamental laws; a state of war involves 5
for the citizens of a country the obligation of giving up their interests, of renouncing their egotism, of sacrificing everything to the public weal. Do you believe that such sacrifices may be imposed on a whole people without a reaction being bound to arise at a given moment? Moreover, every body knows than when war is let loose, public expenditure cannot be controlled as it should be. There are uncontrollable expenditures, which go on increasing by leaps and bounds; appetites get sharpened, passions spring into flame, love of money increases and to satisfy the rank and file of the party, to gratify friends, inroads are made deeper and deeper into the public treasury, and meanwhile, public anger keeps roaring and gathering. And prior to its being let loose, torrent-like, over the country, jeopardizing those institutions for which our ancestors so long struggled, for which, I say, men of the generation of the acting Prime Minister have so often done battle and for which institutions those who .will come after us are willing to live, struggle and contend, so as to improve and enlarge them, were it not high time we told the Government: In the public interest, gentlemen, do not hesitate to sink your personal ambitions,, to make up your mind to renounce the sweets of office, go to the country, appeal to the people, and should the people, through means I do not wish to qualify here, wish to give you another lease of power, you shall at least have public 'Confidence behind you, you shall at least have the support of public opinion. Beware you do not tarry and wait till class feeling has reached such a pitch that you can no longer stem the tide. The farming community, in this country, should it syndicate, would prove to be the power par excellence, and you should have class legislation, an administration prejudicial to public development. And this, because of your refusing, at a given moment, to take up a position which your duty to the public demanded, and because of your lack of confidence in the people, who put their trust in those who have served them well.
And that is why I cannot understand the position taken by the Government in refusing to accept the amendment moved by my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition.
The hon. member for London (Mr. H. Crony11)-and this will be my concluding remark-said in his speech in moving the Address in answer to the speech from the Throne that the state of war bad brought about the overturn of the old order of things political. I am going t-o lay down



here a .principle, 'at the risk of shocking those who hear me. I make no bones about saying that I am .a party man; II am not ashamed of stating that I am a believer in political parties and I .shall tell you why I believe in political parties. Without any political parties in which men of all classes and conditions ,may meet and give personal bickerings their quietus, so as to work harmoniously and hand in hand in the common interest, you shall have a Government made up of factions, you shall have an administration carried out by coteries or groups. Oif the two governments, that which has been most subservient to the interests of humanity, is party government. Because the government of countries carried out by political parties has proved the greatest agency for good in the world, I am still in favour of that government. I 1am still a party politician and I believe-any contrary opinion notwithstanding-that there is .magnanimity in the fact of a man who, holding strong views, tries to have them prevail, but yielding to his colleagues whose opinion runs counter to his own, is broadminded enough to .pocket his personal grievances, so that the opinions of the majority of his party friends may prevail. It strikes me that there is magnanimity in such an attitude. Do not call it servilism, do not call it slavery. Every one is entitled to hold his own opinion, until the majority has spoken, and in such a case it is the opinion of .a whole party which is voiced by the majority, and everybody must subscribe to it.
I wish to make an appeal to my right hon. friend, the .acting 'Prime Minister, because, I believe, he is a party roan, and because II invoke the statements of the supporters of this 'Government, that for the winning of the war, all political parties had to sink their differences, in order to form a coalition government, and now that the war is over, I appeal to him,-not as a political opponent,-but I am entitled to make that appeal because he is the oldest representative of the people in this House, the most experienced man, and he is considered as the strongest man in his party: let him do his best so that we may go back to the administration of public affairs in this country on the lines of well defined political parties, leaving to each group the care of urging its claims, but without giving rise to the creation of clans or classes which would bring about class and faction legislation, which would result in the overthrow of every thing we hold dear, for which we

have fought so long, and which we have inherited from our ancestors.
Before taking my seat, let me thank this House for having so long listened to my remarks, which may have proved devoid of interest to the majority of my colleagues; but I thought that under the circumstances, I was entitled to the use of my mother tongue, as the assertion of a right, and in speaking in my own name as well as on behalf of those I represent here, I wanted the claims, demands and grievances of my constituents to be heard on the floor of this House in their own mother tongue.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: I should like to join Mr. Speaker, in the praise extended to the mover and seconder of the Address, for I am sure their speeches are worthy of every enconium that has been bestowed on them.
This noble building one might expect to inspire noble thoughts, but I have boen somewhat disturbed by the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Gauthier). He began by repudiating the conciliatory remarks of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), and ended, as I understood him, by saying-and he asserted that he spoke for himself and his Province-that Quebec would not confer until her hour had come, and then she would be prepared to confer. If that is what the hon. gentleman said and if that is what he meant, I would ask him if he intended that as a threat.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: It is not a threat; it is a declaration.


John Hampden Burnham: The difference between a threat and a declaration, especially a declaration of that kind, is that the man who makes the declaration is afraid to back it up.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: The hon. gentleman has no right to insinuate that I am a coward.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would not be in order for any hon. member to impute cowardice to another. It is a question of construction as to whether that is what the hon. member (Mr. Burnham) meant in the present instance, and I can hardly go so far as to place that interpretation upon his words.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, I of course bow to your ruling instantly. I might explain that I was not attributing physical cowardice to the hon. gentleman; I was attributing to him moral cowardice, something that he himself-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member has now clearly brought himself within the rule of the order, and his latter remark ought to be withdrawn.


John Hampden Burnham: I certainly withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker. Proceeding then upon a declaration which is not a threat, but which is a full, plain and explicit declaration by a man who is speaking for himself and his Province, as he said, I must say that I am unable to distinguish between his remarks and something of a very warlike and threatening character. I do not understand such talk as that. I am an admirer of the French. I like the French-the French of Canada as well as the French of old France. But in these days when we in Ontario have had to stand the Nationalists, when we have had to endure from Quebec every insult under Heaven, why should we be subjected to a statement of the most mysterious character, a statement that they would only confer when their hour had come. That means when their hour has struck. Well, if it means that, I can only say, with most infinite regret, that I do not care a brass farthing whether they threaten or whether they do not, for I am confident that we will be able to hold our own with equanimity.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I may say that we will never confer with the hon. gentleman, for if we did he would not understand.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Hampden Burnham: However, this sort oi feeling that has been aroused, to my infinite astonishment and very great regret indeed, seems to be in the air. The passion displayed by the gentleman of that portion of the Opposition is no doubt largely aroused through the feeling that they have lost the major portion of themselves. The farmers of this country beyond all doubt, according to my way of thinking, owe to the Liberal party, who held the fort for many a long day, at least a tribute of respect, if not of consideration. But now the farmers have repudiated the Liberal party, and surely if the farmers repudiate their associates, the least we on this side can do is to agree with them. They know the Liberals better than we do, and they have cast them aside like a brand into the burning. I regret this parting from old associates, from those who remain of a great historic party, now about to disappear because it is to be swallowed up in that far greater movement known as the Agrarian or Farmers' Movement.
This is one of those incidents arising from furious feeling which has been developed by the war. We have other exemplifications of force; we have the women of this country (whose forte is practical but not philosophical idealism), advocating force. Strange to say in this general convulsion after the war, when peace should have supervened, we have the doctrine of force being preached from one end of the country to the other, by ministers in the pulpit and by women out of it. The religion and the morals of the people, as well as their peace and content, depend upon individual liberty, and if we are to understand, as the Rev. Doctor Bland said recently in his pulpit-a prominent pulpit in Toronto-that individual liberty has disappeared, and that we must henceforth have only community liberty, then we must bow to force. Well, we will bow to force only when we have to. And we will not submit to the force of the majority, because I have known a minority that, when it came to force, could overcome a majority; and if our women and the pulpiteers have so far forgotten their respect to God, and preserve their desire to spread infidelity throughout this country, as they are most certainly doing, let them remember that the remnant who hold dear all the old basic elements of the moral law, the basis of religion, will adhere to these elements when these people proclaim, as they are proclaiming, that the death of Christ himself was unnecessary if the Almighty had had brains enought to prohibit the source of evil. It is one of the most extraordinary and deplorable conditions imaginable. I am well aware that those who say that do not mean it, but they do not know. Those people who pooh-pooh philosophy ; who sneer at the fundamental reasons of things and set up something that they adore and that they are determined to back up 'by force, have intensified the spleen and excitement which we now see throughout the country and which will result in the country's downfall if something is not done to prevent it. I am not now referring to any particular brand of prohibition. It is not necessary to stop at alcohol; that form of prohibition is a very minor affair. We need only follow that idea up to rveive at once the conditions of the inquisition. It it is wrong to misuse alcohol, it is wrong to misuse religion-and we have all the horror of the days when women were executed as witches and when people were burned at the stake, the persecutors maintaining the while a remarkable self complacency. The descendants of these very

people are to-day del girted to see a repetition of what has happened before. One cannot look hack on those days without wondering how these things could have been done; but when people are wedded to force they can' do anything. I can only say that I do not come of a race that submits to force. If force has to be exercised, then let us "cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war." We can all join in that, and possibly out of this extraordinary condition of things there may come that spirit of re-union which the hon. member for St. Hy-acintbe (Mr. Gauthier) a few moments ago seemed to repudiate. We cannot and we will not put up with this dogmatism which has been engendered by a false system of ethics, this force which has been substituted for the old religion and which sooner or later will destroy the very foundations of society.
One of the disturbing elements of the present day is, beyond all doubt, the condition of the mind of the soldier. He is not satisfied. Why? Because broadly before him is placed this simple fact: That the people Who stayed at home have profited and that the people who went to war have lost. They simply say to themselves: Upon us has fallen not only the burden of the war at the front, hut the burden of the war at home; we are ignored; we must struggle. The 'consequence is that there has been engendered and aroused a feeling which is regrettable in the extreme because it is caused by ingratitude-above all things the basest and the meanest flaw in the human chai acter.
I confess that the people who have been engaged in looking after the returned soldier have thought that they were doing well. To some extent they have been doing well. But he gives twice who gives quickly, and they did not give quickly, nor did they follow up what they intended to do with that instantaneous and practical carrying out of the intention which would have taken away so much from the sting of the loss which these men had suffered. Delay followed delay. Impracticable things were suggested. It was suggested that returned soldiers should go upon the farm who did not know a farm when they saw it. Men were offered inducements to go upon the farm but no inducements to go into business. Afterwards the loan principle was extended in some degree to business but there has been throughout a lack of promptitude on the part of our people-on the part of all of us-with regard to the soldier. And the soldier feels it. He does not want

to be paid for what he did. He cannot be paid; no country could pay him. But after four or five years of war he finds that he is in an extremely bad condition in many cases-a poor, unfortunate condition- and he thinks that if he had some decent help in time of need; if the people of this country had been a " very present help in time of trouble," this post-war period would have been tided over, with possibly few exceptions. But the condition has been so widespread and so general that it has occasioned at last a suspicion in the minds of the people themselves that all is not right. In England they have said that war fortunes must not only be regretted; they must be given up. How frequently do we say that people in this country made a good thing out of the war; but we let them keep it. Let them in all honesty and ourselves in all honour remember that while they are entitled to a fair reward and fair remuneration, they are most decidedly not entitled to keep the fortunes they made during the absence in the field of strife of our glorious soldiers. There can be and will be no satisfaction so long as these evidences of luxury are paraded before the men who made the sacrifice which made possible the enjoyment of these luxuries. Therefore when we analyze the various causes of discontent we must remember that we have not by any means done all that we could do to allay it.
The high cost of living is founded upon the most awful inflation that ever took place in the history of the world. It is true that the nations' holdings of gold have been enormously increased, but the paper currency in circulation, based upon that gold, has been still more enormously and disproportionately increased. The increase has extended from three times what it was before the war in some cases to ten times what it was before the war in others. There is an immensity of paper money. In some quarters it is worth nothing; in other quarters it is worth little, and we have high prices, based, of course, upon this inflated currency-the Governments of the world, not excluding our own Government, meanwhile standing by and taking no steps or adopting no measures to shrink that inflation and enable prices to get back to where they were. The most extraordinary feature of it all is that we have in exchange a loss to this country which is almost beyond belief and is almost more than we can bear. There are people, the farmers included, who view this condition with equanimity. They may he a little dis-

turbed, but they say: We will not buy in Canada if we can buy more cheaply out of it. Well, if they are determined to follow that system and they are bled year by year many millions of dollars in discount or by way of foreign premium, then, just as a case of Bright's disease will sooner or later destroy and exhaust a human being, so will the payment of that money surely destroy Canada. The nations of this world are not one. We have all our households, national and domestic to look after. Our farmers are the most cultured and, generally speaking, the happiest and most prosperous class in the whole community. For them to consider that they have a right to envy the rest of us because of our superior luxuries or attainments is a serious and sad mistake. I know of nowhere that the farming community enjoys such a high, broad and luxurious life as in Canada. Therefore, it is with the utmost regret that I see that they have formed themselves on a basis of force into a class or group, and to prove that they have formed themselves into an exclusive group, they say that nobody but a farmer can join them. You have nothing left; you cannot follow in behind them because you approve or disapprove their principles, because they repudiate you. And why do they repudiate you? Because their whole new policy is founded on selfishness or self interest. How can they say that they intend to do what is best for Canada when they refuse to let good Canadians join them unless they are actual farmers? They hope, by the power of their number to come to Ottawa to rule the country, and I am stirred to make these remarks by hearing the Premier of Ontario say that he did not care so much for his job as Premier of Ontario, only for one thing, namely, that he regarded it as an outpost in his keeping, and he bade the farmers of Ontario keep their eyes and their minds upon Ottawa. There, he pointed, was the field of their operations, and the province of Ontario will be kept as an outpost while a class or group, defying all the traditions of good Canadianism and all the desire that we have that we should blend our interests, will reject all these and say: We will keep the province as an outpost and make our assault upon our fellow citizens at Ottawa. As for the others-their day will come; labour, the professions, their day will come; the manufacturer, their day will come, their hour will come, in the language of my French friend. But now, just like a great storm blowing across the country, the farmers have announced that they are determined to sweep all before them.
Well, that is a magnificent way to proclaim the unity and solidarity of Canadianism. I sympathise with the Liberals that I see before me who are going down in this great storm. I do not suppose that two years hence Liberalism will be more than a name; and if the Conservative party, or that which shall succeed the Conservative party, does not defend the true national policy, which means Canada for the Canadians, a well developed and well balanced country, the Conservative party, or the party which succeeds it, will go down too.
Like the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. MOwat), I am wedded to no party, but I am wedded to a Canadian policy. I am wedded to the national policy, not to every feature oi it, because there have been mistakes; there have been injustices; but to the principle. Work at home, work together; buy at home; let your country be well balanced; then when time of trouble comes, you will be developed and able to take your part as in the late war, and when difficulties of a financial character arise, they will all be at home and you will not be paying out your gold to redeem yourselves and paying a huge discount to other nations. These things are too serious to trifle with, and I hope, in these crucial days, nobody is approaching these subjects except with the most acute concern.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Hampden Burnham: When the House rose for dinner I was calling attention to the question of exchange and inflation, and I shall not detain the House further than to make a general summing up. I will begin by congratulating the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, the former leader of the Opposition, (Mr. McKenzie) on the courage and fortitude which he displayed in pronouncing unequivocally for Protection, in favour of Canada for the Canadians. It required some courage to do that in view of his surroundings, but I am pleased to see that he thinks more of Canada than of any party; the same spirit should inspire us all.
I just wish to say further with regard to the farmer that if any body asks why it is the farmer has become so aroused he will find the answer in the fact that the farmer dreads high wages, daylight saving, and things of that kind. Especially does he

dread shorter hours, and he cannot be blamed for that in view of his industrious life and its requirements. The question of shorter hours is no reproach to labour, because when we consider how it arose the answer at once presents itself. In the United States, for example, the operators of the coal mines, in order to have as little coal on hand as possible when the demand came for it, shortened the hours of production, so that if the worker in the coal mine was to have any pay at all he must necessarily shorten the hours of his working day so that he could get in more working days, because it frequently happened day after day and week after week that he would have not only many hours but whole days idle. Now when he sees that the operators have made tremendous profits, running all the way from 400 to 2,000 per cent, what can he do but strike? for neither this Government nor any other that I know of has provided him with any means of expressing his feelings in the matter except by striking? People when they read the newspapers hold up their hands in horror at the usurious perc ntage exacted by such operators as I have referred to, but they make no effort to stop it. The reason I refer to the United States is that the Americans have at last taken up this question in their usual strong and vigorous way. We in Canada, although I have nothing but the greatest respect for our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Kobertson) who is I think a man of great energy and great ability and certainly of great sincerity, seem to be utterly confounded by these things. We have no solution; we offer no suggestions, and the cruel work goes on. Labour has therefore taken the matter into its own hands, and if we do not get an eight-hour day it will be because we will get a six-hour day, and the farmer will then be worse off than ever. If the manufacturers, for instance, decided to run the country, decided to form a powerful financial group and to concentrate their energies and their wealth, with all the ability that their leading men have, upon their own interests in this House, and with the farmers doing the same, where pray would the rest of Canada be? I would be just as strongly against the manufacturers in any such event as I would be against the farmers. We must be a united and a sane people, or we will cease to exist as a nation. I am confident that one of the difficulties this country labours under is that the people are largely uninformed except as to their own business, and here is a reproach 
that lies at the door of our leading men. Our ministers of government and the leading men of the Opposition might well go through the country, not at election times when nobody believes anybody else, but at other times, and explain the broad principles of government and of statesmanship. A statesman, Gladstone said, is a man who ascertains the facts and acts accordingly. In this way our leading men would learn in their peregrinations what the true conditions of the country were; they would know what the country thought and needed, and the country would know also what they thought; but at the present time, until the war drum of elections is sounded, nobody pricks up his ears about the country at all, and it is left to Canadian clubs and similar institutions to educate the country. This is a very serious drawback, and I am quite convinced that the good feeling as well as the intelligence of the country would be very much developed if our leading men were to visit different sections of the country at different times.
I want to touch for a moment upon a source of energy that has come like a flash into view and will afford us more comfort than anything else that I know of. The day of coal has gone by. Even if it could be mined, it is of poor quality or it is not there-I am referring to hard coal particularly, and the highest quality of soft coal. Gasolene has become so tremendously expensive that it is fast disappearing in public estimation and is creating a need which is about to be supplied, industrial chemists tell us, by industrial alcohol. The Americans a few years agb manufactured 6,000,000 gallons of alcohol per annum. Now they manufacture over 100,000,000 per annum. Our industrial alcohol, owing to the nervousness of the temperance people, has to be shipped from the distillers to Ottawa, there be denatured, and sent out to the users throughout the country. The consequence is that the freight alone is so expensive that Canada is put out of business as a consumer of industrial alcohol. That has to be stopped. The National Council of Industrial Research begs the Government to tell the people to grow more corn, and potatoes and everything of that sort' from which alcohol can be easily made, and then to take off all sorts of embargoes such as I have referred to, so that this source of energy may be made available to the people.
which means, of course, not only motive power but heat. We are short of electricity, and even if we had all the electricity we

wanted, alcohol has- become so cheap as a manufacturing product that one might almost describe it as the product of the wizard's wand. The hope of the world lies in industrial alcohol. Let us be alive to that fact and see to it that the Government duly recognizes it. A few years ago it was discovered that peat could be made into a fertilizer. I wrote to the department then, some five years ago, and begged them not to let some people get hold of all the peat bogs in the country and, after they had been tied up in this manner, find that they were all owned privately. I believe that some steps were taken in the matter. There is a fertilizer which, as the chemist might say, by a single twist of the wrist could be made available to the whole country, and surely it is necessary and desirable that this should be done.
I desire to say in closing-because it is a matter that is very near to my heart-that the basis of religion and morals is individual liberty; and when individual liberty is gone then no religion or morals can exist. The Creator recognized this truth, and He could not establish the moral law or be the fountain of that law and compel one single human being by means of prohibition or any such device. We are to have no freedom, no free will in anything, except by the behest of the prohibitionists. If you want Bolshevism, if you want that frightful explosion of energy which we saw in Russia, which overthrew like a volcanic eruption the tyrannical and autocratic system that was in vogue there, then that is the way to get it. There was no sense in the cruelty practised there by the ruling classes. The country did not belong to the people but to the few. How can we expect a great multitude, disturbed like an immense animal from its long sleep of oppression, to do otherwise than rise up and smash everything to pieces? Believe me, there is far more of that very spirit in this country than many people imagine, and it may show itself in many peculiar ways and not be recognized as the spirit of Bolshevism until it is too late. Why pray when the policeman is at the door? That is the motto of the prohibitionists and the user of force, the man who is substituting force for faith. Hail the policemaji! Crush them! Do what no divine plan ever did or could do, and you will show your human presumption, your ignorance and your incapacity. Let me say that no moral system can substitute the "must" for the "ought." In conclusion, let me extend in all sincerity the hand of fellowship from one province to another,
if I may be bold enough to do so. Surely the Protestant and the English speaking people have played some part in Quebec. Surely they have shown their faith in Quebec, as well as their high regard for the French people. We are the same as they; our interests are linked up with theirs; our prosperity and our whole future, in Ontario at least is linked up with that of Quebec. If Quebec and Ontario cannot pull together they will both be ruined, and Ontario knows this whether Quebec does or not. Now, we are all men and women, whether we are French or English, Liberals or Conservatives, farmers, manufacturers or mechanics. Let us drop the race cry; drop the party cry. Let us of course be loyal to whatever school of thought we belong to; let us be loyal to our friends within reason. But let us remember that above all things we are human beings and must be loyal to human liberty and human rights.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charle-voix-Montmorency):	Mr. Speaker, like
many others who have preceded me in this debate, I am glad to have the privilege of participating in the deliberations of this Parliament in these new buildings. Throughout the ages among all peoples a custom has prevailed of erecting monuments to commemorate the lives of great men and the occurrence of great and noteworthy events,-monuments designed to give to future generations a proper conception of the glory of their people. These new buildings which we have just entered, when they will have been finally completed, will stand forever as the best monument to the grandeur and magnificence of the Canadian people. Now, Mr. Speaker, although I join with others in pleasure at this fact, I must confess some disappointment with the speech from the Throne. We expected to hear much more from the Government in the way of new legislation intended to solve the problems of the day. In these new buildings to-day we are face to face with many questions of a very grave nature that demand immediate attention from the Government. Yet in the speech from the Throne there is nothing to indicate that the Government proposes very much in the way of progressive legislation. Mention is made of different events that have occurred since the last session, events concerning for the greater part the affairs of the people of Europe. We also have a reference to the International Labour Convention which was held in Washington last fall, but although there were delegates from our Government

at that convention, we do not hear in the speech from the Throne that our Government intends to introduce any new legislation in order to ameliorate the conditions of the labouring classes of this country. It is amusing to read such sentences as this, which appears in the speech from the Throne:
From every quarter of the world is being impressed, often by severe privation and suffering, the one great lesson that increased production through increased work, combined with thrift and economy in individual and State, is the only sure hope of business improvement and future prosperity.
Now, this is very nice indeed, if only the Government would make some attempt to put this theory into practice. This is a time when there is greater need than ever existed before for Parliament and people to co-operate in the task of working out a solution of the many problems which confront us. It is also pre-eminently a time for the exercise of proper caution when we embark upon untried policies. It is no time for pursuing false doctrines in grappling with political, social or economic problems. It is interesting to read in the speech from the Throne that the affairs of our country are in a very good state, that Canada has maintained a record of social order and industrial and commercial prosperity second to none. If, however, we go to the bottom of the question, as the member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. L. J. Gauthier) stated this afternoon, we shall find that, on the contrary, the affairs of Canada are in an absolutely unsatisfactory condition, due undoubtedly to the imprudence and improvidence of the present Government.
If business was so good in Canada why was the fifovernment obliged, a few days ago, to put an embargo on the selling of foreign securities on the markets of Canada, and to fix the prices of Victory Loan bonds, decreasing the price of those gilt-edged securities for which the Government said we would get par? Many financiers upon being apprised of this action, have expressed the opinion that this is one of the weakest steps that the Government could have taken in order to restore the financial condition of the country. It is bound to be misunderstood by people abroad and to prevent new business from coming to this country. It will also make it much more difficult for the Government to float further loans such as they have been launching in years past. When we contrast the way in which the affairs of the country were run a few years ago with the way in which they are run to-

day, we find that the people of Canada are just as much burdened and taxed as any people ever were. I believe, as a matter of fact, that we are more heavily taxed than the people in any other country. We pay municipal, provincial and federal taxes. The people are absolutely burdened with taxation and yet the Government, notwithstanding the increase in the cost of living, which is being further added to by this taxation, has not seen fit to place in the speech from the Throne any intimation that legislation is contemplated to alleviate the troubles of a suffering people. Either the Government is absolutely deaf to the voice of the people or the people are crying out in vain and their voice cannot reach the Government. When one looks at the treasury benches and contrasts the appearance that it presents to-day, with the appearance that it presented a few years ago, and when we remember the doings of the Government within the last few months, we may be inclined to believe that the spirit of the devil is not dead. We see the Government to-day trying to do things that have never been done before by any Government in any democratic country. Devilish deeds are being done by the Government to keep in power as long as they can and to prevent the people from passing judgment upon them. I say the spirit of the devil is not dead and I believe that the devil himself is.not dead.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: You are laughing, gentlemen, but we saw not long ago in Montreal the respectable, honourable, venerable Minister of Trade and Commerce, the present leader of the Government, addressing the Canadian Club, and we heard him telling the people of Montreal that the affairs of this country are not so bad after all, and that they should not listen to those people who tell them that we should have a change of government; that it would not do any good and that the only thing to do is to hold on and stick to the Government of the day. The leader of the Government said to the members of the Canadian Club, the leading people in the financial world in Montreal: "The only thing you have to do is to economise, work and produce more." We had heard that slogan before-economise and produce. But has the Government given any fair chance to the people to put this doctrine into practice? How can they economise when, since the beginning of the war and after the war, the Government has done everything it could to help the trusts and the big interests? Last year when there was

apprehension throughout the country as to the high cost of living and the abnormal conditions that had been created in Canada, a measure was introduced into this House and a Board of Commerce was created and given wide and broad powers. Its duty was to inquire into the different conditions of life, to try and set fair prices and to see that the big interests and the people controlling capital should not exact too much from the people. What have we seen and what has been the result of that board? After about five or six months trial I fail to see that any result has been brought about. Has it decreased or helped in any way to decrease, the prices of the commodities most necessary to life? Not at all. I believe that the prices are the same this year as they were last


An hon. MEMBER:: They are higher.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And in some cases they are higher. We heard a few days ago that three of the big sugar refineries in Montreal had met together and that they had increased the price of sugar from one to three cents per pound. That is a fact that cannot be controverted. I have been told that this has been done under the supervision, and with the quasi consent, of the Board of Commerce that was created last year.
Mr. Speaker, this Board of Commerce has also conducted other inquiries in different parts of the country. We do not know the results of all those inquiries, but as regards the province of Quebec we may say that the inquiries were conducted-I would not say in an indifferent way, but in a manner that was not quite satisfactory. We have seen some companies ignore certain orders of the Board, and yet the Board seemed to be absolutely handicapped in the matter of bringing the recalcitrants to reason and compelling their submission to the orders.
And what do we see to-day, Mr. Speaker? Just before the opening of this session the press announced the resignation of the President of the Board-one of the most capable men that the Government saw fit to appoint to that position. Many rumours have been current regarding his resignation. Some are to the effect that it is on account of a misunderstanding with the Civil Service Commission, which did not want to see the Board working satisfactorily. That may be so; we do not know. Other rumours are to the effect that certain circumstances that the President of the Board did not want to disclose were responsible for the course he took. We are
assembled to-day, Mr. Speaker, to discuss national affairs and to try to adjust them in the best interests of all concerned. I put a question on the Order Paper, and so has the member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent), asking that all the correspondence leading up to the resignation be submitted to this House as soon as possible, and that an investigation be undertaken to ascertain the real reasons that brought about Mr. Justice Robson's retirement. I might add that we have also heard that his action might have been influenced by supposed friends of the Government who have differences to adjust with the Board. The people have a right to know every circumstance in connection with the resignation of the President to see whether such resignation was, if I may use the word, forced.
'The acting leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) when he visited Montreal and paraded as one of the devils of the Administration told us to produce more. If we are to credit the reports of the different industries and Boards of Agriculture in the several provinces, we must come to the conclusion that we have gone a long way towards increasing production in every line of agriculture and of commerce, and that at the present time our people cannot do very much more unless the Government cornea to their rescue and gives them a fighting chance and fair play.
I said, Sir, that our people cannot do very much more to-day unless the Government tells us fairly iwhat it intends to do regarding the fiscal policy of the country. We hear on every side that people are afraid to' put capital in any new enterprise because they are not sure what the Government is going to do next. In Montreal people have come to me and 'asked what was the intention of the Government regarding the Excess Profits War Tax; was it the intention to keep it in. force for another year? We have not .any explanation from the 'Government :as to their intentions. Last year we were told that a commission for the revision of the Tariff was to be appointed to inquire into conditions prevailing in this country, but up to now, so far as I know, we have not been advised that any such commission has been appointed. We hear that the Government is in possession of certain information, 'but that information is very vague and incomplete, and is not what was promised by the Prime Minister last year on the floor of this House.
I said at the opening of my remarks that the devil was not dead. One day we

see another devil of the Government represented by the unquestioning faith and optimistic personality of the President of the Privy Council, we see him telling the people of his constituency that everything is all right, and praising the Government for what it has been doing since the waT and iwhat it intends to do later. Mr. Speaker, it may be true that the President of the Privy Council is of the opinion that everything is all right with the business of this country, hut if he really entertains that opinion it must be based on very imperfect information of the affairs of this country. If that is the information given to him in his constituency, I would advise him to go into some of our big centres, where I aim confident he would be informed that conditions are not so satisfactory as he has 'been led to believe. He hears only one bell-the bell of the Union Government, and it is not the best bell to listen to in my opinion.
Mr. Speaker, it is no use to talk about the affairs of this country being thoroughly satisfactory and the people quite prosperous, and by way of confirmation to quote figures and statements as did the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McGregor) who seconded the Address yesterday. There is a better way than that, and if I may use the words of a great statesman who is no longer with us, the late Bight Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurder, when he was leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition I would say:
It Is no use quoting figures and statements to convince the people that they are happy and prosperous. When I shall have the direction of the affairs of Canada it will be my policy to enact such legislation as will bring happiness and success to everybody; it will not be necessary to quote figures and statements to realize you are happy and prosperous; you will feel it in your pocket.
The only way the people can he satisfied to-day and the trade and commerce of the country placed on a proper basis and so bring hack that national prosperity which we enjoyed from the year 1896 down to 1911 is by -an immediate readjustment of our fiscal policy.
We have, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, as I said, another good devil of the Government-this is a real one, and I bow to him-the hon. member, the young and promising Minister of the 'Interior (M-r. Meighen). A few months a-go he came down as far as our old province of Quebec and addressed a meeting in the city of Quebec itself.
Then he told a big gathering of shoe manufacturers that they would have to be sub-

jected to further taxation; that if they made big profits the Government would try to get some of them. Two or three weeks later the same minister addressed a gathering of farmers in Winnipeg, and on that occasion he said: "Trust us; we will adjust matters so that you will have a moderate tariff, moderate protection; you will get what you want and be happy." That, Mr. Speaker, is not all. In an effort to appease the people, to keep them quiet, as an old schoolmaster would do with his class, the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) announced that an investigation would be made with a view to seeing what could be done with regard to the tariff. That investigation has been promised session after session, but it never seems to materialize. Now that the minister has officially assumed the duties of his office and is in his seat in the House, we hope that the inquiry with regard to the tariff will be instituted, so that we may know what the situation is and advise our constituents accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, among bad angels there sometimes happen to be a few good ones. Among the members of the Cabinet we find that there were three or four good ones. The former Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White); the former Minister of Agriculture (Hon. T. A. Crerar), and the former Minister of all Departments-I mean the member for Halifax (Hon. A. K. Mac-lean)-as good angels among the devils, separated from their colleagues, saying: "This is no place for us." Some people say that they are defaulters for leaving the Government, but as the member for.St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) said this afternoon, these men entered the Government with a sincere desire to render service in a good cause, and when they considered that they had finished their work and done their duty, they withdrew. Possibly they were dissatisfied, too, with the manner in which public affairs were being administered. These gentlemen, who are public men of the highest character, having seen fit to resign on the ground that their work was finished, the Government of which they formed a part should immediately do the same-they should resign and appeal to the people. It is recognized in our constitution that a dissolution of Parliament is called for when public interest demands that the country should be consulted upon a question of great importance or when the ministers fail to obtain the support of the majority in the House. Never, I believe, in the history of Canada did public interest so strongly demand the resignation of the

Government and an appeal to the people. I need not go into the details of the formation of Union Government; they are known to every one. The Government was formed to win the war. No other policy was laid down at that time. I do not believe that the hon. gentlemen from this side who entered the Union Government would have done so had the carrying on of the war not been the only purpose of its formation. New problems have now arisen. It is impossible for most of the hon. gentlemen who. comprise the Union Government and who are either extreme free-traders or extreme protectionists to agree. The only solution of the difficulty is in appeal to the people.
There is another reason, Sir, why the Government should resign at once, and it must be obvious to every one. I do not wish to be disrespectful in referring to members of the Government, but it is a fact that we have to-day only a remnant of the Administration; and they do not represent the feeling and the sentiment of Canada. Moreover, if we are well informed, the ministers are wrangling among themselves on the question of who shall be Prime Minister or leader of the Government. The office of Prime Minister seems to have lost its usefulness in the affairs of Canada. We are told that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is critically ill and that he cannot return to his duties for some time. I want to be fair to the Prime Minister. He deserves credit for his services during the war and for the manner in which he did his duty to this country and to the Empire as well. But if he is as ill as people say he is, it is unfair for the ministers to try to force him to stay at the head of the Administration. It is unfair to Parliament, and it is unfair to the people. In such circumstances as these the Prime Minister should either resign his office or remain in full assumption of his duties, so that we may know where we stand. If he is not as ill as people say he is, he should be here to lead the Government and direct the affairs of the country. The Prime Minister is the pivot of the Government. All the other ministers may withdraw, but if he remains the Government still exists. When the Prime Minister disappears the Government falls. He has more real power than the King himself; only Parliament is above the Prime Minister. Everybody looks to the Prime Minister, not to his assistant or substitute, for the direction of the affairs of the country. I am speaking here to-day as a member of this Parliament, and I am criticising the present attitude of the Government of the
day, and the Prime Minister in that capacity, as well as in that of the representative of the county of Charlevoix-Montmorency, which I have the honour to represent in this House. We have the right to have the Prime Minister with us to-day instead of having dummies and substitutes and a bunch of green grocers, if I may be permitted to use that term, to administer the affairs of this country when matters come up that must be settled immediately. When I say that we should have the resignation of the Government and a dissolution of Parliament, I do not ask for something unusual or unprecedented. All other countries that have been at war have changed governments since the war; they have had elections, and nobody seems to have criticised them. If I am not mistaken, there was an election in England immediately after the war. Not a new Government, but practically the same Government was re-elected to conduct the affairs of that country after the war. The former Government had a war mandate and now they have a peace mandate. In France, what was dene? An election was held recently and a new Premier was elected. The former great Premier, Mr. -Clemenceau, who directed the destinies of France during practically the whole period of the war and who is justly called the " Father of Victory." has been denied the privilege of being President of the French Republic. What is the reason for that? Because the [DOT] people of France now realize that although this Premier was good for war; that he had all the capacity and energy to conduct the affairs of the country during the period of the war, his usefulness had passed; that new problems had arisen, that conditions had changed and that therefore, the Premier and the Government should also be changed. Why not do the same thing in this country, and then after an election we would know exactly where we stand?
We have been told in this Parliament as well as in the legislatures of the different provinces, that we are a democratic country administered by responsible Governments. If that be so in fact, surely, in order to live up to the traditions of England and also to preserve the rights and privileges that have been granted to us by the constitution, and which were acquired by our forefathers from the mother land, we should immediately go to the people of this country and obtain a new mandate, and a new Parliament ought to be chosen that would come to this House and be truly representative of the country at this time.

I said that public opinion must be at the back of the Government, but what do we find is the trend of public opinion to-day? If we look not only in the Chambers of the ministers at Ottawa and in certain of the provinces that are still backing the Government but throughout the country generally, -we find that the public opinion ot Canada ingoing against the Government. What is needed to settle the affairs of Canada at the present time?
The peace problem can be settled by peace and work only. The 9 p.m. peace which has been acquired with great sacrifices on the other side, the blood of our sons mingling with the blood of the sons of other nations, must give us life. To live we must work, and in order to work we must be willing and active. It is all very well for the Government to say to the people of Canada: Work; but the people can turn to the Government and say to them: Govern and administer and look after us. We must, in other words, have a government that will not have the weakness and the laissez faire and the laissez aller of the present Government, a government which, instead of conducting the affairs of this country, has rather been led by events and a desire to cling to the treasury benches and who believes that it can continue to hold on to them by its own will and its own consent.
/Before resuming my seat, I should like to make a few observations in reference to the speeches made this afternoon by certain hon. members. The hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Mowat) in the course of his remarks intimated that Union Government was a mixture of the best elements of the Liberal and Conservative parties at the time when it was formed, and that there was no reason why Union Government should not go on. That may be so, but it is no reason why the Liberal party here to-day should not stand as it was in years past and as it is at the present time. The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) made certain remarks in which I cannot acquiesce. He said that for instance very soon, in a few years, the Liberal party would be a party of the past, and it might be also that the Conservative party would be a party of the past, and he looked at the new agrarian party and said: This is the party of to-day. Listening to the address of the hon. member for Peterborough West, we discover that he is, although I did not want to believe it until to-day, a very bad preacher, a false prophet and a pessimist. The hon. members who sit 
around me in this House remain Liberals as we were when we entered this House and we stand to fight for the good Liberal cause. I have been a Liberal for over ten years now, ever since I started to mingle in public affairs and politics, and I would not change to-day. A party that has produced such men as Blake, Mackenzie, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Hon. Mr. Mercier, the hon. leader of the province of Quebec, Fielding, Mackenzie King, is strong enough and good enough for me. Its policy that was advocated in the past and which has given to this country such years of great prosperity as we have seen from 1896 to 1911, a party which has given to this country fair representation and fair franchise and elections in years past, is a party of which every one ought to be proud, and as long as there remains a little bit of the flag of the old Liberal party flying anywhere in Canada, I shall be with it and I will stand and if needs be, fall to support it and I will call every one of the supporters of His Majesty's loyal Opposition, whether they are real Liberals or new members of the Agrarian party, our separated brothers of to-day, to join with us and support unanimously the amendment that was presented yesterday to the Address by the leader of the Opposition in order that it may be carried.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon) :: isters. Where does he get that information? It was not known to us. Did he get it from his friends of the Opposition? An excellent source, truly! Have there been any defections from the ministry because of disagreement? Only one, so far as I know, and that .was when my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) resigned from the ministry over the Budget of last session. Has any other minister who has resigned said he disagreed with the Cabinet on their policies? I think not. If this were a discredited ministry would it be likely that the people of this country would advance to the Government such huge sums of money as they have done in the past few years? It is absolute poppycock to talk of the irresponsibility of fche Government and of a want of continuity of thought and action on the part of the ministers. It is very easy to talk like that, but facts are facts, and truth will prevail. What are the facts? My hon. friend accused the Government of instability and non-continuity of thought and action. What are good tests whether a country is prospering or not? Prices are a fairly good test. Prices for practically every commodity are high. Money by common consent is said to be plentiful. Times are good.
There is very little idleness. Our factories are busy and our manufacturers, that from one end of the country to the other, tell us they cannot find enough of commodities to fill the orders they have. Consequently the workmen are employed. Our bank deposits are increasing month by month, and that fact can be taken as fairly good evidence as to the conditions which exist in the country at the present time. I admit that there is unrest; everyone knows that there is. But let us be fair with the people and with ourselves. Have hon. gentlemen opposite mentioned any single thing that can be said to be a cause of the unrest? If there is a cause let us know what it is that we may endeavour to remove it. But do not let hon. gentlemen simply get up and with carping criticism condemn the Government wholesale because the Government cannot do the impossible.
I am firmly convinced that there are more causes than one for the present unrest, which is by no means confined to Canada. The cause is partly an economic one, but it is psychological as well. The whole world is abnormal to-day, and Canada has unfortunately not escaped the common fate. Any one who is tolerably acquainted with history knows, and it can be proven, that after every convulsion such as we have just

experienced there have prevailed conditions similar to those which exist at the present time. One hundred years ago, after the Napoleonic Wars, the exchanges of the world were against Great Britain just as they are to-day; not ten per cent or twenty per cent, but forty per cent, and for the identical causes to which are to be attributed the state of exchange at the present time. Following the American Civil War the same conditions prevailed in the United States as prevail there to-day. And so it is throughout history. As our civilization becomes more complex, and as we harness the forces of nature in order to help us develop that complex civilization, the more difficult will be our problems. No government can obviate these conditions, and it is well to realize the fact and face the situation as best we can. We must understand that the high cost of living is not peculiar to Montreal or Toronto, to the province of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or to the Dominion of Canada as a single country. It is not even confined to the belligerent nations, for if you turn to the neutral countries you will find that the cost of living is greater in those places than it is in the countries that were at war. Now, these are not idle statements. The press of the world will convince you of their truth. For instance, in Spain, a country which never drew the sword at all, the cost of living is higher than in Great Britain; and in the Scandinavian countries, which sold their goods by the million to belligerent nations, you will find that the cost of living is higher than in the United States. I do not make these statements merely for the sake of having something to say, because they can be substantiated. In South America, where there are countries that never sent a man to the war, the very same conditions prevail. The unrest is universal. That being so, what justification can there be for any censure of our Government? Let us be fair, however much we may be critical. I do not say that the Government is infallible. I quite realize that the Government is human like the rest of us and has made mistakes, as it will probably make mistakes in the future. But I reiterate, let us be fair; let us give them a chance to carry on the affairs of the country until times improve. There is only one remedy for the condition that is disturbing the world to-day-I care not whether it is in the Argentine, in Stockholm, London, Paris or Ottawa-and that remedy is the one suggested in the speech from the Throne, a remedy that existed since the moral law was first established

amongst men. That remedy consists in thrift and economy and home purchase, and unless we apply it, the same conditions will exist a year hence as exist to-day.
But the leader of the Opposition, whom I am glad now to see in his seat, did not confine himself in his criticism to home affairs. He went abroad and criticised this Government in regard to its foreign policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, Canada has passed the stage of her swaddling clothes and become a nation, and the Canadian people and Parliament must cease from thinking provincially. We must think in a national and an international way; the day has passed when purely provincial problems shall engage our attention. We won by right a place in the greatest Peace Conference that mankind has ever held. We won recognition by the shedding of the good red blood of our men, and by their magnificent bravery in the field, and we therefore have the right to stand side by side with the greatest nations on earth. I therefore deprecate any attempt on the part of hon. gentlemen to belittle Canada and speak disparagingly of its foreign affairs. When they lo so they show a lack of appreciation of the part which the people of this country played in the great war, and such derogatory criticism of Canada's status is little-Canadianism. What have we accomplished? In fifty years we have created a great nation, connected East and West; established a vast system of transportation; dredged our harbours; opened up a great system of lake and river transportation; created great manufacturing industries; and developed in this country the most highly skilled artisans that are to be found anywhere, a fact which was amply demonstrated in the war. From a peace basis we suddenly entered on war conditions and engaged in the manufacture of shells by the same concerns that had formerly made farming implements. We have placed Canada upon the map of the world. Our banking institutions are going abroad for business and expect our manufacturers to follow. And they will follow. We took our place at the Peace Conference and the Labour Conference, anl before this session of Parliament is over, I understand, legislation will be brought forward to give us a status at Washington with a representative there. This is as it should be, Mr. Speaker, and for my part I shall not be satisfied until we have a representative of Canada in every port of the world where we can secure
a dollar's worth of trade. If we are to take our place properly amongst the nations of the world we must think in terms of diplomacy and realize that we need representatives in foreign countries; and instead of criticising the Government in regard to its foreign policy it would be well for the Opposition to lend some aid in carrying it out.
My hon. friend wants an amendment to the Election Act. Why does he desire this? Because Quebec is not represented in the Cabinet; that is the one reason. Now, why is Quebec not represented in the Cabinet? How many members from the province of Quebec were returned to support the Government? Three out of sixty-five. How many of these three hold seats in the Cabinet? Two. And where is the other? Representing Canada in Europe. Is this Government to be blamed because Quebec has no greater representation I should think not. But they were not satisfied with that. They went to Quebec and made the Hon. Mr. Blondin Postmaster General with a seat in the Senate. The leader of the Opposition says that Mr. Blondin does not represent the people of Quebec because he was defeated in two constituencies. Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Blondin the only man who was ever defeated in two constituencies and who seeks to advise the House. The hon. gentleman who holds the position of leader of the Opposition was himself defeated in North Waterloo and North York, and he comes and tells us we should have a new election, when he could not obtain a seat at all in his own province nor in Quebec, nor in New Brunswick nor Nova Scotia. Where did he get his seat? In Prince Edward Island. And this is the source from which we get the advice that we should have an election! I do not want to be personal, but I do plead for fairness, and my hon. friend has no more reason to suggest that we should have an election than- the man who has not a seat in the House at all. He says that an election should be held because Parliament has outlived its mandate. What does it mean to say that Parliament has outlived its mandate? Is Parliament elected for any particular term other than was provided for in the constitution? The constitution says that Parliament shall be elected for five years. Is there anything in theory or practice that would change that term? I have not heard of it. If there is, I would like to know it, because I am interested in these things.

Is there any other reason he advanced? The Opposition desire it. Did you ever see an Opposition that did not desire an election? The Opposition has no responsibility to the public and it does not need any policy. It devotes itself to lambasting the Government. That is the duty of an Opposition, and that is what it is generally engaged in doing.
Does the press of this country demand an election? Is there any considerable section of the sane press of Canada asking for an election at this time? The press is a very good indication of what the people are thinking. Are the people who direct the policies of the great papers asking for an election? Are the men who write the editorials in our papers asking for an election? No. Why? Because they are sane, straightforward, thinking, Canadians who know that if an election was held it would disorganize this country. What we want is steadiness and to give the people a chance to get down to work again in order that the psychological conditions may become normal.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the Opposition.


Alfred Thompson: The Opposition, 1 hope, will become normal, although that is perhaps too much to hope for. Do the farmers want an election? No. How do I know? Because a congress of about a thousand farmers was held the other day in Saskatchewan and some one in that body submitted ,a resolution asking that this Government be called upon to resign. Did they adopt it? No. The farmers do not ask for an election. That is just a sign of the times. Do the people want an election? Is there in this country anywhere a concerted mass of opinion which demands an election? If there is I want to know it, and I fancy the Government want to know it. I defy the leader of the Opposition, or any of the men who follow him, to name any considerable block of public opinion in this country that is at the present time demanding an election.
What about policies? This Government, the leader of the Opposition says has no policy. Has he a policy to put before this country? I have not heard of it. How about the trade policy? I believe that the next campaign in this country will be fought on the question of the tariff, which is a good, clear-cut, straight issue. Where do my hon. friend and his friends stand on that question? Are they a unit on the tariff question? No. How about free trade and direct taxation, amongst the men from the West? How about adequate protection,

with my distinguished friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie)? And how about St. James division, Montreal, to-day, where there are two Liberals running, one as a straight Liberal and the other as a Liberal-Protectionist? Whoever heard of a Liberal-Protectionist?
The leader of the Opposition said that this Government is unpopular. One of the things I glory in is that we had a government elected to do unpopular things and that it has done them. Why is it unpopular? Because it took the boys from the home-some of them unwilling homes-and sent them to the front; it told the people what they would eat; it told the people what they would drink-


An hon. MEMBER:: What they would not drink.


Alfred Thompson: Or what they would not drink; it told the newspapers what they would print and what they would not print, and it told the newspaper writers what they would write and what they would not write. Can a government be popular and do these things? Of course it cannot. This Government was not elected to do popular things; it was elected to do unpopular things, and I glory in its consistency. I am sure that the Canadian people who elected this Government to do unpopular things will stand behind these men who have fought the good fight.
The unkindest cut of all from the man who leads the Opposition, and who some day hopes to sit in the seats of the mighty and to lead the Government of this country as Prime Minister, is when he attacks the present Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) because he is away seeking health. Could partisanship go farther?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I am sure my hon. friend would not wish consciously to misrepresent my attitude. If my remarks yesterday were in any way capable of the interpretation which he is placing upon them, or if by any turn they would lend themselves to such an interpretation, I am extremely sorry. Nothing was further from my thought than that I should reflect in any way on the Prime Minister. When I spoke of the desirablility of the Prime Minister being in his seat to speak of matters of policy, I had reference to the principles underlying parliamentary government. I was speaking of the desirability if possible of having the leader of the Government in the House to deal with matters of public policy. The reference was followed immediately by a remark in regard to the Prime

Minister's health in which I said that 1 shared the feeling of regret of everyone in the House that the Prime Minister was not able to take his seat. I was glad to-day to hear that the Prime Minister is so much better that he hopes to be back in this House again before very long. I cannot be too emphatic in saying that any reference that was made to the Prime Minister in that connection was made to the office of the Prime Minister and not to Sir Robert Borden who happens unfortunately to be prevented from being in the House at this time.


Alfred Thompson: I am not only glad to give my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) an opportunity of making that explanation, but I am extremely glad to hear it from his own lips. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) in extenuation of the impression that had been made by the leader of the Opposition yesterday took occasion this afternoon to refer to the incident. I do not wish to impugn the motives of any man or to put wrong words in his mouth, but I have looked at the resolution and I am going to read one or two words from it. I accept without reservation the statement of my hon. friend, but in justice to myself I desire to quote this sentence. In the amendment which my hon. friend moved and which my hon. friend from Cape Breton seconded he regretted the "protracted absence of the Prime Minister, the widely accepted belief that it is not his intention to return to the duties of his office." I took it from that that he was not expected to return by my hon. friend and his friends and that they were trying to force him out of public life. I felt indignant, but I am glad to have the explanation from my 'hon. friend and I accept it. I hope the right hon. the Prime Minister will return soon in the full flush of health. Of the Prime Ministers who led Governments from the beginning of this war in other belligerent and allied countries, in so far as I know, there were only two living and in office at the end of the war and of these two one has since died. I refer to General Botha, the Prime Minister of South Africa. The other man is the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, our Prime Minister, who has carried a giant's load all these years, and who now, after four or five years of Herculean effort, is broken in health and has gone away for a brief respite from the onerous duties which bear heavily upon him as Prime Minister of this country. I am sure that I voice the sentiments of hon. members on both sides, Mr. Speaker, when I express the hope that he 6
will return, and return in good health this session. But whether he does or not, I am satisfied that the great majority of our people hope that he will stay away until his health is completely restored.
Now, Mr. Speaker, whether this Government wins or loses in the next campaign is in the lap of the gods, but whatever happens I am satisfied, as one of the members of this House and as a supporter of this Government, that Union Government has justified its existence. And, furthermore, I believe that when the work of this Government has been properly placed before the people it will stand a better chance of securing a majority of the seats in this House than any group existing at the present time, including that which is presided over by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. J. E. S. E. d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (translation): Mr. Speaker, I shall first take up some remarks which the hon. member from the Yukon (Mr. A. Thompson) just made. The hon. gentleman fervidly upheld the Government, and it is no wonder because it is owing to this fatherly Government for which he pleaded with so much force that he is privileged to hold a seat in this Parliament. So the people can understand why the hon. member who just resumed his seat was upholding with so much assurance, if not with great conviction, the moribond Government that are still the arbiters of the future of this country.
The hon. member from the Yukon found fault with the hon. leader of the Opposition for not having in his remarks touched upon the tariff question. My experience in public life has been short, still it seems to me that the Government, not the opposition, is called upon to draw up a political program. Last session, the Government named a commission which was to investigate tariff matters. The commission was to report so that the question could be settled during this session. In the Speech from the Throne there is nothing to show that the commission has done anything. Like every commission created by this Government, that commission did nothing and nothing has been put before the cabinet. As I said, it is the duty of the Government to outline a policy, and the leader of the Opposition is not bound to show his hand. While touring the country and specially the Maritime provinces, the leader of the Opposition had occasion to state his policy in



that connection, and that policy is known not only to the members of this House, but to the whole country. When the Government sees fit to raise that question,, the leader of the Opposition and all those who are proud to follow his lead will be here to uphold the Liberal programme which always was that of the people and opposed to the program of trusts and combines which is that of the Government now swaying the destinies of Canada.
The hon. member from the Yukon said that the leader of the Opposition regretted that the province of Quebec was unrepresented in the Canadian ministry. Sir, that province is not represented, and somuch the better. For my part, I venture to state that I do not wish that the province of Quebec should have representatives in such an administration. It will be represented when the people is called upon to bring the Government to trial and when a Liberal administration rules this country. At that time, when the people has faith in the Government, when the country is led by honest and enlightened men who do not wage their political battles against the province of Quebec, who do not make the most of racial and religious prejudices in order to remain in power, we shall be proud of seeing representatives of that province in such a Government.
From 1896 until 1911,, the province of Quebec was represented, and legally represented, in the Canadian administration, for we had as leader of this country the greatest man who ever lived in Canada, the one who has departed and whose memory shall live forever, the one who inspires the present leader of the Liberal party and his followers. When we have a Government of that stamp to head us, a Government composed, I shall not say of men as worthy as Laurier,, but of men who strictly adhere to his political principles, his respect for every race and every creed, of men who will avoid offending not only the one province, but any province in the Dominion of Canada; then, gentlemen, we shall be proud of being represented in such a cabinet.
Some contend that the hon. Mr. Blondin represents the province of Quebec, as a member of the Government. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have stated that the hon. Mr. Blondin had been defeated in the province of Quebec, only because of his having supported the Government enforcing the Conscription Act. That is not the only reason. He was

defeated, because, along with many others, in 1911 he had outrageously misled and deceived the people of that province.
The hon. member for the Yukon, who is always at the fore to defend the cause of the administration, sang the deeds of the boys at the front. Now that the war is over,, and that peace has come in, it were high time that a stop were put to that music which grates on our ears. The winning of the war was the Government cry to remain in office or to get a new lease of power; they should like to keep up that war cry and that the war were still going on. It served so useful a purpose for the hon. gentlemen that the war should go on. Unfortunately for them and happily for the people the war is concluded and I hope that a majority of votes will be cast in favour of the amendment so that- the Government may be forced to the country. On the Opposition side, we want the people appealed to, without the least fear as to result; we want the people freely to choose their representatives; we want the country to come back to British institutions, to responsible Government; we want the liberties that have been secured to us to be respected.
During the war, all laws and rights were suspended and crying abuses crept in. The present Government was the first to infringe the law, and not so long ago, our prisons were crowded with young men who had not reported for duty, and they were thrown into prison, because it was contended that they had violated the law. The guilty parties are the hon. gentlemen opposite. Those axe the men who should be packed like sardines in jail, and not these young men who often acted through ignorance or because they considered that it was better for the country that they should stay behind and remain steadily at work on their farms, to increase the production of foodstuffs, for our own people and our soldiers overseas.
Although the debate is nearing its conclusion, think it my duty to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address who have so well discharged the task entrusted to them. But I cannot extend my congratulations to the Government itself, the Government has once more ignored the rights of the French language, a fault which has grown into a habit. At the opening sitting of the session, it is true, the Acting Prime Minister was kind enough to say a few words in French; but neither the mover nor the seconder of the Address have said a single word in French. The right hon.

the Acting Prime Minister in referring to the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition queried whether it was not a fine bit of strategical camouflage. Let me tell him that it was his remarks in the French language, at the opening of the session, that could be styled a fine bit of camouflage; for, had he been honest, he wields enough influence over the Cabinet, as he is the substitute of the Prime Minister, to make his followers realize that the rights of the French language should be respected in this Parliament and that the mover or seconder of the Address should at least be able to express themselves in French. This is the third occasion on which I register my protest in this House in the name of my constituents. It is not enough to make speeches in French, but the constitution must also be respected. The two languages are' official and the rights of the French should be upheld. The mover or seconder of the Address, under the tradition, has always been a French Canadian or at least a Canadian conversant with the French language. Moreover, during the preceding sessions, I availed myself of the opportunity of saying that there is an hon. gentleman on the Government side who is fully qualified to move or second the Address in French. The hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Maekie) is quite competent perfectly to perform that task. He has shown himself proficient in Parliamentary oratory, and is eminently gifted in the art of expression in the French language. Were the Government anxious to respect the rights of the French language, they could have, this year, entrusted him with the task of moving or seconding the Address.
From the very opening of the session, all the talk is about national unity and a better understanding; about making love and offering incense to Quebec.
In 1917, Quebec was not coaxed. The main thing was to win an election. The Unionist government saw fit to enforce conscription in order to discredit that province in the eyes of the other provinces, to get them at loggerheads with her and so to win the election and remain in power. It is two late now to cajole Quebec. They see to-day that they cannot be elected without the help of our province, and after vilifying her and treating her in the most outrageous manner, they are intent in making peace with her for political purposes. Well, Sir, Quebec is beautiful, great, noble in her loneliness. There is peace in that province; her government has assured prosperity to her people who live happy. The fault is Gi
not ours if the other provinces do not enjoy the same conditions.
It is rather late to flatter Quebec for, I repeat it, during the political campaign of 1917, that province has been used as a scape-goait; everywhere they have fanned the racial and religious prejudices and roused the other electors against her. It has been said: Quebec will not do her duty; the French Canadians refuse to enlist; conscription must be imposed upon them.
Sir, the French Canadians have too chivalrous an ancestry to warrant such aspersions, and the 22nd regiment have distinguished themselves overseas. For the third time I shall say that in Rknouski county we have two Victoria crosses, lieutenants Brillant and Raeble who were killed in action. We are not the descendants of cowards but of a chivalrous race. We wanted to fight, but freely, as men. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said in the electoral campaign that if the Government had been sincere, if they had used the necessary means to boost voluntary enlistment, conscription could have been dispensed with. Moreover, in other British Colonies, in Australia, for example, one of the most important colonies after Canada, conscription has been pooh-poohed. Consequently, it is neither more nor less than a political game against the Liberal party, in order to rouse the other provinces against Quebec with a view to remaining an power.
The address is particularly interesting for what it omits mentioning. The only important thing found in it is the plan of a new Franchise Act, It is obvious that the Government are not at all anxious to go to the people, but they are cautiously feeling their way. Why should we not keep the old Franchise Act, the one we had before the war? Owing to the war-time Elections Act, the country is spending monstrous amounts and, if I am not mistaken, the government have decided to maintain the system of enumerators in the making of the electoral lists which were previously the work of the municipal councils, the said lists being used for the federal as well as the provincial elections. They were fair and just to everybody and the country had nothing to pay. But, with the present system of enumerators,' those lists cost enormous sums of money, and besides they favour all kinds of frauds which profit to government candidates. I hope therefore that the Government will not exceed the bounds of decency and that if they introduce in the House a Franchise Bill its

principle will be more acceptable than that embodied in the War-time Elections Act and that all those entitled to vote shall have their names on the lists.
In the elections of 1917, a great number of citizens who for twenty years past had exercised the franchise, were denied their rights under the War-time Elections Act, because they were suspected of being opposed to the Government of the day. If the Government earnestly wish to put an end to the unrest in the country, they are bound to enact a Franchise Bill which is fair to everybody; they are hound to go to the people at once in order that the electors of Canada may choose their own representatives.
I am satisfied that when the people pass sentence on the present Government they will 'be anxious to appoint another one which better safeguards the country's interests, that is a Liberal government, worthy of the Canadian nation and the Liberal party, 'as the one we have had from 1896 to 1911, for the happiness and prosperity of the people.
Besides, the present Government have never represented public opinion. It is no use to say that the Unionist Government were elected to win the war-such was and is still their claim-but these gentlemen have no right to say that they have a mandate from the people, for this mandate was juggled away from them by means of the law of Elections in War time -and of the manipulation of the soldiers' vote overseas. I therefore say that the iGovernment have no right to say to the country and to the House that they have the support of the people, that they were elected to win the war iand to save the Empire. If the Government are so confident in the success of their 'administration, if they are so sure that the people are behind them, why do they not appeal to the people, why do they not go and ask them for a renewal of their mandate, not by means of an election that may be juggled away as in 1917, but in an election carried on as they were in 1896 and 1911, when the people were free 'to express their opinion on the choice of their representatives? When the Government decide to go before the people II .am sure of the verdict that they will obtain, and the Government themselves, well .aware of what that verdict would be, will do every thing 'to defeat the amendment proposed by the leader of the Opposition.
I. said a moment ago that 'there is unrest *in the country, an unrest largely due to the present Administration, but also to the high

cost of living. During last session, dt seems to me, a commission was .appointed to inquire into the high cost of living,, to examine how to remedy the situation; but unfortunately nothing has been done by this commission. The most efficient remedy with which the Government might meet the high cost of living would be overproduction and the lowering of the duty on agricultural machines and on all the articles needed by .the farmer. Overproduction is being all the time preached to the farmer; he is everywhere begged to produce and produce always but he is not given the means to produce any more than he does. Were the Government sincere, they would amend the tariff, they would modify it so as to relieve from duty all agricultural implements and all articles of first necessity to the farmer. In this way the farmer could produce more and at much less expenditure, and the consumer would benefit thereby. It seems to me quite important that- the Government should, during the present session, take measures to change 'the situation, to lower the cost of living; and this could be done by an intensive production, fostered, I repeat it, by a lowering of the duties on the agricultural implements and on the articles of first necessity to the farmer.
I would like, by the way, to say a word about the dismissals which are at present taking place in the 'Printing Bureau. As you know, employees .are being dismissed by fifties at least in the Printing Bureau. The reason given is 'that their services are not required and after these men are gone, longer hours are in certain offices imposed upon those that remain. If it is necessary to increase the working hours it must mean that these men were not useless. I have been told that these men were French Canadians, were old men, and that they were thrown on the street without pension, without any .compensation. This surely cannot be called measures of patriotism. As every one knows, the Government hardly practise economy; they spend lavishly, too lavishly even. Why not keep these men in the Printing Bureau? The Government pretend that these employees were dismissed for reasons of economy. If they were sincere let them begin by practising economy themselves. I .protest with energy against these dismissals.
Now, why have Americans been called here to effect a reclassification of the Civil Service? You remember that in 1911, the slogan of the opponents of the Liberal party, the slogan of the Tories, was, "No truck,

no trade with the Yankees". And yet, today, when anything or anybody is needed,, the Government apply to the United States, when we can have here what is needed, when we have Canadians who can do the work with as much intelligence and 'at less cost to the country. When this reclassification was to be made, why were not the chiefs of the departments taken to do it; they knew the situation much better than the Americans called to do the work and to whom fabulous sums were paid for the insignificant labour 'they have performed. I protest against this .abuse.
II again protest against the dismissals I have referred to, and |I hope that the Government will at least see to it that the men thus turned out be treated with justice. Old men of sixty, of seventy, were discharged; I hope that the Government will come 'to their help and will grant them such pensions as they deserve.
Before concluding, I would like to answer some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), concerning the Liberal party. The hon. member for Parkdale used to be a Liberal, he bears a great name, that of a great Liberal, but I see that he has degenerated and he does not honour that name to-day. He stated that the Liberal party existed no more, that is was extinct in this country and that true Liberals could be found, not on your left, Mir. Speaker, but among those who crossed over to the other side and who are supporting the Government to-day.
The Liberal party is just as alive here as it is in Great Britain and the hon. member for Parkdale must have heard, a few days ago, of the splendid victory won by -the leader of that party in England, Mr. Asquith, in the constituency in which he was nominated for election. He too had been cast -aside because he had refused to compromise on the question of Liberal principles and because he would not follow Lloyd George and enter the coalition. He stayed away, but, to-day, the English Liberals who are just as true to their principles as we are to ours here, rejoice over his return to the British Parliament; I hope he will make it as hot for the coalition Government as the hon. leader of the Opposition has -started to do as regard this Government.
In closing, I must say that I support entirely the amendment introduced by the hon. leader of the Opposition. If the Government feel that they have a record worth
submitting to the people, if they ,are so sure of their re-election, why do they not go and face courageously the electors? Why do they not ask the Governor General for the dissolution of Parliament, in order to submit immediately their political record to the people? Personally, I am anxious for it, because we would be able to again demonstrate to the people of Canada that the hope and future welfare of this country are still with the Liberal party and the leader it selected in the great convention, held in August 1919. That -convention at which the hon. member for Prince was elected as leader, was really democratic, because all the different parts of the country were represented thereat.
With so distinguished a leader, ia loyal disciple -of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the bearer of a great name, and -a descendant of a proud -and noble stock, I a-m convinced that when we shall go before the people, they will recognize their true friends once more and place at the head of the country the eminent leader of the Liberal party, who, I am sure, will do justice to the Province of Quebec and restore in our country the happiness and prosperity which we emjoyed from 1896 to 1911.
On motion of Mr. L. J. Papineau (Beau-harnois), the debate was adjourned.



BOARD OF COMMERCE-RESIGNATION OF JUDGE ROBSON.

[Stage Direction]
-Sir GEORGE FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I desire to lay certain documents on the Table.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Sir George Foster desires, with the unanimous consent of the House, to lay certain documents on the Table.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I lay on the
Table copies of communications that passed between myself and the Chairman of the Board of Commerce in connection with the resignation of the chairman. The correspondence is as follows:
Board of Commerce of Canada.
Ottawa, 23rd February, 1920. My Dear Sir George.
It is impossible for me to continue further in the office of Chief Commissioner of the Board of Commerce. I trust the Government will select a successor at an early date. This may be treated as a formal resignation if you so wish or I will 6end a more formal document.
As I previously informed you I could not see my way to removing my home to Ottawa and I am under the necessity of returning to

Winnipeg at once. Under these circumstances I should make way for another appointment.
Sincerely yours,
H. A. Robson.
The Right Hon.
Sir George E. Foster, P.C., G.C.M.G.
Board of Commerce of Canada.
Ottawa, February 23, 1920. The Rt. Honourable
Sir George E. Foster, P.C., G.C.M.G.,
Ottawa.
My dear Sir George,
My short experience on the Board of Commerce in the administration of The Combines and Fair Prices Act, has led me to views which make it improper for me to hold a position on that Board. The fact is that I am out of sympathy with the Act, and it is my duty to inform you thereof.
The general idea was that the Act was calculated to reduce the cost of living. That impression was largely erroneous. The primary idea of the Act was control of profits on sale of necessaries. To some extent that might affect the cost of living, but high prices and small profits may and in fact do very often coincide.
It is only the thoughtless that imagine that prices should have been brought down and that such was the function of the Board.
The economic policy of the country should be towards high prices and against low prices. Numerous governmental agencies, at the expense of the people of Canada, are doing their best to get the highest world prioes for Canadian produce. In view of this, any machinery to reduce prices of this produce is simply abortive.
But taking the Act as merely profit regulating, in my View it is largely fruitless, also because of the fact recited above, that the producer will find the highest market and the highest profit, and if these are abroad he will send his goods there. Once again I remark that the governments encourage him to do so.
It is futile to think of trying to bring down prices or profits on necessaries in view of above facts.
Dealing with it as a measure to repress profiteering, I have further objection to the Fair Prices part of The Combines and Fair Prices Act (which is the important part of that Act) in that it picks out for profit regulation those classes of producers and traders who deal in the necessaries of life. This regulation does not apply to the great number of other branches of business and occupation. We restrain and discourage the citizen who supplies food and clothing but leave free to profiteer as he pleases the man who deals in nonessentials, or luxuries. We do not touch any excessive charging for service involving mechanical or professional experience. There can only be one effect, i.e., to discourage persons from entering into the production and distribution of the necessaries of life.
There is, to my mind, further objectionable discrimination in- that the measures for controlling the selling prices of the retailer are in terms fairly effective, while those for reaching the manufacurer are not so.
A profiteering measure to reach the distributing class should, in my opinion, be local in its character and be administered locally. Federal machinery cannot reach the grievance effectually throughout all Canada.
[Sir George Foster.)
It seems to me further that the Act actually contains a provision which removes the last chance the consumer had to do anything for himself in reducing the cost of living. There never was before the Act anything to prevent a group of consumers from co-operating in the purchase of necessaries. They took their chance of being able to buy. But a declaration of parliamentary policy crept into the Act, and a manufacturer or wholesaler is not bound to sell to classes who were not accustomed to purchase from such manufacturers and wholesalers. This was designed to head off cooperative movements, which were likely to make progress for the benefit of consumer members and, as I say, restricted a remedy which elsewhere has been of some effect in price control.
I might also add1 that I think the provincial authorities should have been left with power to prosecute combines in any case where they might see fit, without being bound to first apply for a finding of the Board. The inquisitorial provisions of the Act, while of a nature useful in war time for ascertainment and control of food supplies and other necessaries, do not, in my opinion, fit ordinary conditions and only harrass and discourage business men.
I do not wish to be understood as saying that I do not think there is a legitimate and useful field for the Board of Commerce. Great good can be accomplished by the spread of information and by careful administration of investigating machinery. Publicity itself as to the reasonableness of cost and profit will to a substantial extent benefit the consumer. He may thereby know at least whether or not he is being imposed on. My idea is that a Federal body of general character working in with provincial authorities who would enforce anti-profiteering laws would be beneficial. But that is a matter which requires discussion and some re-casting of the Acts. My opinion of them as they now stand is stated above.
I am, yours sincerely, H. A. Robson.
Prime Minister's Office, Canada.
Ottawa, Ont., Feb. 25, 1920.
My dear Judge Robson,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd February, in which you say it is impossible for you to continue further in the office of Chief Commissioner of the Board of Commerce and ask that your resignation may be accepted at once. I have brought the matter before Council and an Order was passed to-day, accepting your resignation. Let me express personally my regret that you have found it, for reasons expressed in your letter, impossible to remain any longer in the position of Chief Commissioner or member of the Board.
Yours faithfully,
George E. Foster,
Acting Prime Minister. Hon. H. A. Robson, K.C.,
Board of Commerce,
Ottawa.
Ottawa, Ontario,
February 26, 1920.
Dear Judge Robson,-I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 23rd February, in which you give yeur views as drawn from your experience in the operation of the Board of Commerce ad-

ministration and your suggestions as to v-r.at might he done in the way of amendments to make the machinery more workable and to tetter effect the purposes had in view when the Board of Commerce Act was passed ny Parliament. I thank you for the suggestions, which will be carefully considered by the Government.
Tours faithfully,
George E. Foster,
Acting Prime Minister. Hon. H. A. Robson, K.C.,
Board of Commerce,
Ottawa.



REPORTS AND PAPERS TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Governor General's Warrants; Statement of Expenditure on Account of Miscellaneous Unforeseen Expenses; Statement of Temporary Loans Issued and Outstanding Since the Last Session of Parliament; Annual Report of National Battlefields Commission ; Annual Report of Ottawa Improvement Commission; Statement of Receipts and Expenditure, Royal Society of Canada; Financial Statement of Montreal Turnpike Trust; Report of Superintendent of Insurance, Business of 1918-Life, Fire and Miscellaneous Insurance Companies; Statement of Civil Service Insurance Account; Statement of Superannuation and Retiring Allowances; Public Accounts.-Sir Henry Drayton.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 10.07 p.m.
Wednesday, March 3, 1920.